Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:07:34 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> Cc: will@physics.purdue.edu, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pkg-comment && pkg-descr && distinfo Message-ID: <3B264C56.54B964B5@FreeBSD.org> References: <200106072015.f57KFLo22248@mail.uic-in.net> <3B2078DA.BD47A1C8@DougBarton.net> <3B209177.5D729F28@FreeBSD.org> <3B210F4A.EA907ACF@DougBarton.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > First off, I really don't appreciate you adding ports@ to the distribution > list for this e-mail. I wrote my post with a certain target audience in > mind. If I'd known you were going to expand the audience to a public forum > I might have phrased things differently. In any case .... Gmm, what's wrong with public forum? I redirected the thread because portmgr@ is inappropriate place for such discussions. It seems that you are, along with many others people out there, misunderstand purpose and goals of portmgr. Portmgr is not an architectural board that sets and executes direction of ports development, but instead it is a purely executive body, whose only task is to adjust ports system according to decisions worked out jointly by committers and contributors in the more broad freebsd-ports list. Hence, all architectural discussions, like this one, should be carried out in freebsd-ports forum. > Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > You are missing one big point, that makes your arguments very poor. It is the fact > > that Makefiles aren't really intended to be used like that. > > Makefiles are a tool. They are to be used as we choose to use them. Yes, > they are better or worse for any given project, but this one could easily > be made to work. Well, keyboard is also a tool, but it is inappropriate for driving nails - hammer should be used instead. > > Text description is > > functionally different from the "engine" provided by makefile, so merging it into one > > file would be an ugly hack that would obscure the things beyong the reasonable point. > > It is similar if someone would argue that there should be only one source file for > > each utility in our src/ tree, or even that source files and manpages are to be merged > > with Makefiles to save large number of inodes. If someone can't bear ports tree and > > want to save inodes that he/she should really use packages instead. > > > > Perhaps at some of the future, when we will move away from Makefiles (to xml or > > anything else) this issue could be reconsidered, but now it is not sounds reasonably > > for me. > > If you are dead set against this, no problem. The responsibility then > falls on you to come up with a plan to scale the ports system past its > current size. It's not like I need any new projects. So be it. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B264C56.54B964B5>