Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:31:00 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <200410161331.01356.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20041016015034.GA92507@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <20041016015034.GA92507@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart5602830.rAF6WM11gQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 16 October 2004 03:50, Erik Trulsson wrote: > I don't know what Debian does or does not do, but I don't need to know > that to tell you again that adding a million slave-ports is not > realistic and that anybody who seriously suggests that must be out of > his or her mind. (Yes, I did mean "a million extra slave-ports" > literally, and was not employing hyperbole.) I have no idea how you're arriving at the number of a million slave ports. = I=20 have no idea how you could think I was suggesting adding a million slave=20 ports (however one would achieve that, I have no idea) either. > (Hint: Currently there on the order of 10000 ports. Adding a million > extra ports would increase the size of the ports collection > hundredfold, and the package building would probably not be able to > finish until it is time to start over again for the next release. > That million slave-ports is just what would be needed for > multimedia/mplayer. That's utter nonsense. The easiest way of providing a good package for a po= rt=20 is: Turn as many optional features/build-switches on by default. In some=20 cases, turning something on isn't desirable because it adds too many=20 dependencies to a package which people would not usually want. For _those_= =20 cases, it is a good idea to investigate if slave ports can be made so the=20 features are available to package users immediately. If that's not possible= ,=20 tough luck - at least for the moment, because a good port maintainer would= =20 then go and try to nudge upstream development into making the application=20 modular enough to make it possible in the future. > I view the building from source as the primary purpose of the ports > system, with the creation of binary packages as just a nice bonus. With all due respect for your view, but that's just not true. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --nextPart5602830.rAF6WM11gQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.9.10 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBcQZ1Xhc68WspdLARApaMAKCrVS5Ww21lQim5MFHDfOinPK0VigCgmvRX Lo0Dl6T8Gn7YikgIOhFRPwQ= =82go -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5602830.rAF6WM11gQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410161331.01356.michaelnottebrock>