Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:35:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Greg Byshenk <freebsd@byshenk.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removed ports - looking from the bench Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109110739170.10077@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20110911124910.GK13219@portland.byshenk.net> References: <4E6B1AF5.7090900@tomse.dk> <4E6B227B.5050708@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B77EE.6030509@gmx.de> <20110910171530.GC23457@guilt.hydra> <CADLo83_jp3Orrjp0LvVRnwxY-RL=0e8PSXmEruwaH7TsLZ7=VA@mail.gmail.com> <20110910190549.GA23971@guilt.hydra> <20110911124910.GK13219@portland.byshenk.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Greg Byshenk wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: >> >> Why? > > Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong" > (for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question. I can't > speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at > least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier. Slippery slope: consider PHP, or Apache, or any MTA. Or newfs. > Someone who can't figure out how to install some software if it takes > more than 'portinstall <software>' almost certainly isn't knowledgeable > enough to evaluate the risks of installing buggy, exploitable, or > unmaintained software. The ports system and FreeBSD in general are not capable of accurately assessing a user's abilities or situation. Informing the user of problems with a port is certainly within the scope of the ports system, or a hypothetical "bring back a removed port" tool. But the responsibility for the installation and use of any software is all on the informed user. The difficulty or ease of bringing back a removed port does not change that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1109110739170.10077>