Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:10:59 +0200 From: Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 0668752 Revert "Framework: Introduce bsd.sponsor.mk" Message-ID: <C79C33A1-E208-4FDA-A4F3-47896A0DEB12@lastsummer.de> In-Reply-To: <088ebbb6-bd7f-4167-964f-9aa83d36c5e0@quip.cz> References: <088ebbb6-bd7f-4167-964f-9aa83d36c5e0@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 25. Jun 2024, at 10:21, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: >=20 > Pushing people to use packages sounds comical. Are we really talking about= those packages that are not built at all, like Signal Desktop and many othe= rs? The over-reliance on Poudriere has been going on for a decade but I=E2=80=99= ve never heard it spoken out that ports are less favourable than packages be= fore. It=E2=80=99s an interesting goal with the fun part being that ports ar= e needed anyway in this concept. So the underlying motivation is that some d= ay ports building is only encouraged via Poudriere and bugs it obscures are g= oing to increase and people wanting to install a modified port are going to h= ave a hard time doing it if at all. Or modifications will be further discour= aged? =F0=9F=98=89 Still one of the biggest issue is a shortage of committers. Not that there i= s a shortage of submissions. But having less committers makes it easier to e= nforce arbitrary rules by the inside circles. I also agree that ports should be for ports building. The makefile framework= is very good. Why risk it by wedging packages over ports? Cheers, Franco=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C79C33A1-E208-4FDA-A4F3-47896A0DEB12>