Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:39:58 -0500 From: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: Remko Lodder <remko@FreeBSD.org> Cc: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Limitations of Ports System Message-ID: <4763063E.7090800@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47630478.6060907@FreeBSD.org> References: <475F7390.9090509@gmail.com> <20071214121906.1241dcdd@gumby.homeunix.com.> <B3A6C3A7E2071BE94F2EFA1E@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <200712140947.26972.david@vizion2000.net> <476301A8.4090009@FreeBSD.org> <476303A3.4010205@gmail.com> <47630478.6060907@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Remko Lodder wrote: > Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: >> Remko Lodder wrote: >>> David Southwell wrote: >>>> On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote: >>>>> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 +0000 RW >>>>> >>>>> <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def >>>>>>> with 345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since >>>>>>> we already set it for abc. >>>>>> How do you know the user wants 345 set on both ports? >>>>>> >>>>>> It might be a useful stable feature on "abc", but causes >>>>>> lock-ups on "def" >>>>> SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh, I can only infer what >>>>> you are responding to and respond to him. But let me state >>>>> this emphatically in the hopes it will get through his >>>>> thick skull. >>>>> >>>> I do wish you could acquire the maturity to distinguish >>>> between the advantages that could come arguing your case >>>> clearly and collegially and the disadvantages that acrue from >>>> being personally antagonistic towards someone with whose >>>> analysis you happen to disagree. >>>> >>>> For me when someone becomes abusive they destroy their own >>>> credibility and get to sound as though they believe their >>>> opinions antitle them to be hateful and that their own views >>>> are somehow godgiven. >>>> >>>> >>>>> IT IS NOT THE JOB OF PORTS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR USERS. >>>> IMHO Shouting make you less rather than more credible. >>>>> \Please repeat that one hundred times until it gets >>>>> through. >>>>> >>>> Endless repetition does not add strength to analysis!! >>>>> No port should *ever* make decisions on a users behalf. >>>>> Suggestions, yes (e.g. OPTIONS that are enabled by >>>>> default.) Decisions, no. If you depend on another port >>>>> *and* on certain knobs in that dependency being enabled, >>>>> then *tell* the user that during your port's install and >>>>> let them decide how to handle it. DO NOT enable those >>>>> knobs yourself, no matter how tempting it may be. >>>> IMHO You would sound more credible if you used the IMHO a bit >>>> more!! You might also gain some respect if you followed your >>>> own advice. Make suggestions for others to consider - do not >>>> decide, in advance, they are thick skulled if they do not >>>> agree with you!! >>>>> It is beyond impossible for anyone to know what every user >>>>> who is installing ports already has on their boxes or what >>>>> they might want to add or ***what you might break***. Once >>>>> you begin making decisions for them, you could well stomp >>>>> all over something that was functioning perfectly normally >>>>> and break a critical box. >>>>> >>>>> DON'T DO IT. That is so Microsoftian it's not funny. >>>> IMHO Shouting, hectoring and lecturing does not add weight to >>>> anyones point of view. >>>> >>>> >>> These threads have gone far enough, please consider taking this >>> off the FreeBSD mailinglists and discuss this privately. The >>> majority does not like the current ideas and want to see >>> something usefull first. People like Aryeh and David are not >>> really persons that one would see as the persons generating the >>> ports-infrastructure-ng till they have code. If you both keep >>> pissing off people that have a fair share in the ports >>> collection already, please do it by other means, dont crowd the >>> mailinglists with it. Your ideas might be perfect in your world >>> but they aint in ours (till you have shown working code). So >>> please stfu till you have some code and be done with it <DOT>. >> Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster.... we are making >> fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or >> 2 threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT* >> producing a system no one wants is pointless thus it is wise to >> gather as much input as possible... why is it that everyone who >> sees the whole concept as being negative has offered no input >> what so ever about what should be done (even saying "the current >> system is fine" is useful to us) >> > > simply because we have seen it failing a lot of times. Please take > this offlist,discuss this and generate a nice PoC, then get back to > us, till that time, DONT bother the ports list with it or any other > list. You are the single reason for a HIGH S/N ration on MOST lists > I am subscribed to that is a REALLY -BAD- thing. Perhaps one reason it has failed is because there was not a wide enough front end effort to decide what was really needed vs. what some individual thought was needed... as to the s/n thing there would be lot less if you actually debated on the technical merits of the proposal and not the meta discussion of does something belong here or list b or where ever... unless you think community input is completely pointless I invite you to suggest an other medium that allows for it without making is semi-obscure and hard to find. > > You Simply dont understand the way it works here and I can > understand that till a certain point of view; take the advise; > discuss it elsewhere, and get back with working code (yeah I repeat > it twice because nobody seems to get through to you, and MANY > people tried it already). Oh I hear the message loud and clear and just happen to not agree with the thinking behind it. Namely ivory tower development has its place but not here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYwY+zIOMjAek4JIRAj/NAJ0aTnHnDejwXlujkc8AITtGqGxgywCgmoeh FcWtuCJqPmepfIUCgA87+lM= =S9wo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4763063E.7090800>