Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:41:34 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, ache@nagual.ru, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Niklas Hallqvist: archivers/hpack.non-usa.only Message-ID: <950.852759694@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Jan 1997 11:06:17 MST." <E0vi2OI-00031E-00@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That said, what is the goal of the ports system? To be beautiful on > all systems, or to have minimally invasive change to the software to > get it to be functional on FreeBSD? You can't have both, since the #2, without question. I've also been watching this whole OpenBSD thing with very mixed feelings. I like that they are getting use out of the ports collection, since that's always cool, but I'd hate to see the ports collection get put under the same jeweler's loupe of pan-OS scrutiny that the rest of the system gets. The ports collection is not the same thing as /usr/src/usr.bin :-) I think that we should try to syncronize the make macros when it's reasonable to do so (e.g. do not make bsd.port.mk even harder to understand and maintain than it already is), but the idea of a unified ports collection is almost certainly a fool's errand unless we unify along a much broader front (include files, libraries, etc) and I, for one, don't see that happening. I think that the OpenBSD group should maintain its own ports tree, adapting our ports when necessary, and we can just look over eachother's shoulders occasionally to see if the other camp has brought in something particularly neat. Since a "port" is so small, and the changes required generally so minor, the process of bringing ports over from one side or the other is pretty simple anyway. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?950.852759694>