From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 8 19:18:54 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE9916A46B for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:18:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerard@seibercom.net) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F8B13C46E for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:18:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerard@seibercom.net) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h28so777924wxd for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.23.2 with SMTP id 2mr4901731wxw.1181330332617; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.4? ( [67.189.184.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i10sm2322583wxd.2007.06.08.12.18.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:19:14 -0400 To: User Questions Organization: Seibercom.net In-Reply-To: References: <294439d20706081139l241ec4b6p83347ccb9d5847bc@mail.gmail.com> X-Face: "\j?x](l|]4p?-1Bf@!wN<&p=$.}^k-HgL}cJKbQZ3r#Ar]\%U(#6}'?<3s7%(%(gxJxxcR nSNPNr*/^~StawWU9KDJ-CT0k$f#@t2^K&BS_f|?ZV/.7Q Message-Id: <20070608151456.6CC6.GERARD-SEIBERT@seibercom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.31 [en] From: Gerard Subject: Re[2]: Increase in the number of ports: upgrade xorg to 7.2... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: User Questions List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:18:54 -0000 On June 08, 2007 at 02:57PM illoai@gmail.com wrote: > xorg is now 180-230 some-odd tiny packages (ports) > instead of the old -clients, -server, -libraries blobs. > > It seems to work okay, and minor updates are far less > strenuous. I give it five years to either prove itself or > all the developers to go mad and sacrifice their firstborn > in some wicked ritual to the sun-god. I am not totally convinced. If one small package is updated that is depended on by 10 other package that in turn are depended on by a like number of other packages, what has been really gained by breaking everything into small bits? They may be easier to maintain; however the impact on updating the system seems like it would be minimal. > Failure or not, the "modularity" will be adopted by microsoft > sometime around 2013, who will announce it as "The First > Commercial Product to Use a Wholley Modular Codebase" > except they won't spell "Wholley" with as much style. I always thought that, that was what 'DLL's' were all about. -- Gerard