Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:32:05 -0500 From: Erich Zigler <erichz@superhero.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removal of QT1/KDE1 ports Message-ID: <20020420153215.3082B37B427@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20020420124521.A44482@energyhq.homeip.net> References: <200204190230.g3J2U5b84091@freefall.freebsd.org> <3CC082E5.5050400@gmx.net> <20020420124521.A44482@energyhq.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 20 April 2002 05:45 am, you wrote:
> I don't agree at all. How about people using older hardware? Those
> computers, e.g. old laptops, can run KDE1 just fine, but don't have the
> power to run KDE[23]. Or shall we assume that only fast hardware is
> supported? Please, don't turn FreeBSD into a kind of RedHat thing.
So, we're supposed to let the ports system grow bloated with old archaeic
packages? That probably not even 1% of the userbase will use?
I'm all for satisfying the needs of the userbase, but not to the effect of
polluting the ports tree.
Why isnt GNOME 0.99 still in the ports tree? Someone might need it. Why
isn't XFree86-2 still in the ports tree?
They are old archaeic packages and have no use on a modern computer.
Plus if a user's hardware can't run KDE2 or KDE3 it probably shouldnt be
running X. Or they should some less intensive WM such as Blackbox.
--
"I've learned not to put things in my mouth that are bad for me"
Monica Lewinsky on Jenny Craig
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020420153215.3082B37B427>