From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 17:21:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4228B16A4CE; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from alef.poprostu.pl (alef.poprostu.pl [195.116.86.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632D443D53; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:21:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from piero@poprostu.pl) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=poczta.poprostu.pl) by alef.poprostu.pl with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD) id 1Ae22q-000DeE-Uu; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 01:59:37 +0100 From: "Piero" To: Adam Weinberger Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:59:36 +0100 Message-Id: <20040107005936.M26949@poprostu.pl> In-Reply-To: <20040106015049.GM27144@toxic.magnesium.net> References: <1073346203.765.210.camel@gyros> <20040106015049.GM27144@toxic.magnesium.net> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.10 20030617 X-OriginatingIP: 80.50.114.146 (piero) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Restructuring GNOME meta-ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 01:21:12 -0000 On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:50:49 -0500, Adam Weinberger wrote > >> (01.05.2004 @ 1843 PST): Joe Marcus Clarke said, in 1.9K: << > > I was thinking maybe we should borrow something from garnome seeing as > > since they've borrowed practically everything from us already ; -) (the > > ports system, that is). What if we restructured the GNOME meta-ports to > > look something like this: > > > > x11/gnome2 (leave it the way it is) > > x11/gnome2-lite (leave it the way it is) > [...] > > > > Thoughts? > > I'd like to consider some different organizations. > > I'd like to see stuff broken down in ways similar to how > the ports tree does it. I think that all mail and news > apps, for example, should be kept together, and should be > under a productivity heading that includes the components > listed above for gnome2-office, as well as things like > gimp and maybe bluefish. > I'm not sure I got your idea the right way, it is 2 pm right now here. But I don't think such grouping of similar apps can be useful to the users. It might be good for categorizing ports, but do you ever install the whole mail or news directory? I don't think so. I would rather choose the best or the most popular app for these new meta ports instead of putting a couple of competing ports. I do like evo as a contact manager and calendar client, but I much prefer sylpheed as a MUA, but this was my choice to have them both, but would I install Balsa also having the others? Of course, people should be aware that those are in no way "suggested" or "official" choices nor for GNOME or GNOME@FreeBSD, and they can tweak their packages as they are able to dive into the ports tree. Maybe with pkg-descr? -- Piero piero@poprostu.pl