Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:22:10 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs) Message-ID: <20110909052210.GA5505@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <4E68EF1E.9090803@FreeBSD.org> References: <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> <4E68EF1E.9090803@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110909052210.GA5505>