Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:14:47 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils Makefile ports/sysutils/zfs-periodic Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-message Message-ID: <20110110081447.GA30110@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110110073906.GB17761@lonesome.com> References: <201101092101.p09L1TEt092060@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110110013403.GA92966@FreeBSD.org> <4D2AA738.6020104@FreeBSD.org> <20110110073906.GB17761@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:39:06AM +0000, Mark Linimon wrote: > The other thing to note is that once things get into the base system, > because of POLA, they need to stay there. In ports, things can come > and go much more freely. True, didn't think about it. FWIW, I do not mind having more than one similar utilities in the ports (although I prefer to have *one*, but fully *working* tool[1]). But I really hate to have to do something more than reading pkg-descr's to figure one exactly which one do I need/will be happy with. "Just pick any" answer does not work: among desired functionality, I might care for run-time dependencies, suitability for unattended setups, availability of my favorite GUI toolkit client, frequency of updates, etc. Quite often our ports do not provide enough information about the software, and users have to read through Makefiles and pkg-plist's. Bottom line: if you're adding new port to the collection when other ports of similar functionality already exist, add few words on what makes this one special, save others the trouble in the future. ./danfe [1] http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/07/fallacy-of-choice.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110110081447.GA30110>