Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:53:13 -0500 From: Vulpes Velox <v.velox@vvelox.net> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Martin Wilke <freebsd@unixfreunde.de> Subject: Re: new categorie "meta" ? Message-ID: <20060522185313.289edabb@vixen42.vulpes> In-Reply-To: <1148325485.92062.11.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <20060521234850.2fd4d360@mwilke.ath.cx> <20060521200933.7d600cd4@vixen42.vulpes> <1148325485.92062.11.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 May 2006 21:18:05 +0200 Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Vulpes Velox p=C3=AD=C5=A1e v ne 21. 05. 2006 v 20:09 -0500: > > On Sun, 21 May 2006 23:48:50 +0200 > > Martin Wilke <freebsd@unixfreunde.de> wrote: > >=20 > > > Hi Friends, > > >=20 > > > since creating new categories comes in vogue lately I just > > > wanted to ask what you think about creating a categorie called > > > "META". Why you should do that is simple: There are enough > > > ports serving as meta ports. These include: > > >=20 > > > lang/php4-extensions > > > lang/php5-extensions > > > x11/xorg > > > x11/gnome2 > > > x11/gnome2-lite > > > x11/kde3 > > > x11/kde-lite > > > x11-wm/xfce4 > > >=20 > > > usw. > > >=20 > > > That would lead to a clearer layout and improved overview of > > > large applications (esp for newbies). > >=20 > > I agree with the rest that it is a bad idea. I do think the > > though of tagging everything that is a meta port with meta- > > though. Like with linux binary ports are done. The only one that > > makes me consider this being a bad idea is x11/xorg, but not > > quite sure why immediately. >=20 > pkg_add -r meta-gnome2 > pkg_add -r meta-kde3 > pkg_add -r meta-xfce4 >=20 > Do you think this is intuitive? :) Would a answer of yes surprise you? ^_^
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060522185313.289edabb>