From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 05:35:43 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C541065670 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 05:35:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.153.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A57E8FC18 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 05:35:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-51-20.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.51.20]:61108 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R1tX2-0000xx-I5 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 07:21:42 +0200 Received: (qmail 95318 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2011 07:21:38 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 9 Sep 2011 07:21:38 +0200 Received: (qmail 5545 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Sep 2011 07:22:10 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:22:10 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: Matthias Andree Message-ID: <20110909052210.GA5505@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <4e65b42e.M5K+to11vAdk/UTk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E6581E2.1060502@FreeBSD.org> <4e671817.ddHMkPbq9dJ7tLMz%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E66EFC5.3020201@FreeBSD.org> <4e67a3b2.CVKcpQ8KQzuo8BP+%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E67F41F.70401@FreeBSD.org> <4E680908.3060708@aldan.algebra.com> <20110908084205.GG13219@portland.byshenk.net> <4E68CE0D.2050000@aldan.algebra.com> <4E68EF1E.9090803@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E68EF1E.9090803@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.51.20 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1R1tX2-0000xx-I5. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net 1R1tX2-0000xx-I5 1e60742f4efd266604c81be88394aa25 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:35:43 -0000 On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > 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). Highly debatable. It is clear that a poor port is undesirable compared to a good port, but very often a poor port is more desirable than no port at all. > > An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > the first place). Bullshit! Keep in mind that FreeBSD itself is a fairly obscure piece of software in that most people in the world have never heard of it. For any given individual something like 90+% percent of the ports in the ports-tree could count as obscure since that person has never heard of that particular piece of software before. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se