From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 10 08:14:47 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id E14E8106567A; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:14:47 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
Message-ID: <20110110081447.GA30110@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201101092101.p09L1TEt092060@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20110110013403.GA92966@FreeBSD.org> <4D2AA738.6020104@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110110073906.GB17761@lonesome.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110110073906.GB17761@lonesome.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
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
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree
	<cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:14:48 -0000

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