Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:36:46 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs) Message-ID: <4E68EF1E.9090803@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E68CE0D.2050000@aldan.algebra.com> References: <201109050933.p859XEbP004874@fire.js.berklix.net> <4E64C35A.50004@FreeBSD.org> <4e65b42e.M5K%2Bto11vAdk/UTk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E6581E2.1060502@FreeBSD.org> <4e671817.ddHMkPbq9dJ7tLMz%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E66EFC5.3020201@FreeBSD.org> <4e67a3b2.CVKcpQ8KQzuo8BP%2B%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E67F41F.70401@FreeBSD.org> <4E680908.3060708@aldan.algebra.com> <20110908084205.GG13219@portland.byshenk.net> <4E68CE0D.2050000@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > Having a poor port of an obscure > piece of software is better, than no port at all. A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first place). An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in the first place). Now guess what a poor port of an obscure piece of software is. We're not there to run a museum of horrors, and we're not the starting point or sole provider of such software. In fact we should not even attempt to do that. People interested in that obscure software can either help themselves without a port, can organize the necessary assistance, or should not be running it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E68EF1E.9090803>