Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:05:34 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs) Message-ID: <20110909010534.GA15143@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <201109090101.p891190r079196@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <4E68EF1E.9090803@FreeBSD.org> <201109090101.p891190r079196@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > >=20 > > > Having a poor port of an obscure > > > piece of software is better, than no port at all.=20 > >=20 > > A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first > > place). >=20 > Wrong. > A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be marked Broken. Still > a lot less work to polish than writing a port from scratch. Still a > damn sight more use to non programmers than no port. Maybe it might > just need a bit more work to speify more depends, but still be working > anyway. It occurs to me there are people who would call KDE4 a "poor" port. I suspect deleting that would not go over well. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --17pEHd4RhPHOinZp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk5pZl4ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVpgQCgjspa+3mMzDI1ZYRjUsw/b+v/ 4/gAnjHRsC+8xZeW4yaw47RojJ4JUB68 =uWWF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --17pEHd4RhPHOinZp--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110909010534.GA15143>