Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:17:49 +0100 From: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When I put up any version of FBSD I usually try to install Maxima ... Message-ID: <20120129021749.GA11891@slackbox.erewhon.net> In-Reply-To: <4CCDDD40-8E6D-4FDA-8717-76A6A0DC71DD@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <39B6DA4E-AFA2-486D-8CDD-D737310FE6B2@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20120128233048.GA7513@slackbox.erewhon.net> <4CCDDD40-8E6D-4FDA-8717-76A6A0DC71DD@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 01:30:37AM +0100, Michel Talon wrote: > Agreed. That is why it is an _option_ now. >=20 > Yes but ON by default, which is the problem. It is even a bigger problem > when you realize you would like using other versions of TeX than the > standard one, for example you would prefer Texlive, and i would prefer an > ultra minimalistic version if that existed, because i think that at least > half of TeTeX is complete crap, already. I could not care less of luatex > and other "modern" stuff, i would be happy with only the postscript vers= ion > of the Knuth fonts plus a few type1 fonts that I like. I have no use for > metafont and other graphic programs. The only modern improvement i find > valuable is pdftex, and i find latex2e to be horrible, but unfortunately > necessary nowadays. Like it or not, the next version of pdftex will be luatex. (According to so= me of the principal developers, Hans Hagen and Taco Hoekwater). I think luatex= is interesting, because a lot of things like calculations are much better done= in a general-purpose language like lua than in a macro- and token-based langua= ge like TeX. But I'm digressing. > And who is to say what is "appropriate", other than the respective > maintainers of the port in question? In my opinion, packages are a > dead-end street. They might be convenient but they are also "one size > fits all". Which as your message demonstrates is not the case. :-) >=20 > It is here that we differ considerably, i think that ports are a complete > dead end which can be easily proven by the fact that almost nobody uses > FreeBSD compared to Linux binary distributions (like Debian, Ubuntu). I Initially BSD had more momentum than Linux. But then the infamous USL v. BS= Di lawsuit happened, which effectively derailed BSD development for years. Packages versus ports had little to do with that. > could make the same argument with Linux source based distributions like > Gentoo. It is the sort of things people believe they like at first, and > finally run away from because they are constantly broken. In a big system like the ports tree there will continually be ports that wo= n't work, for various reasons. That is inherent in such a dynamic and evolving system. There is no software without bugs. But to describe the _system_ for building from source like ports, pkgsrc and gentoo as constantly broken is severely overstating the matter, IMO. According to the count today on Freshports, of the 23080 ports, only 190 are marked broken. That is about 0.8%. One should also keep in mind that packages are built from ports, and can't be made without it or something similar. Roland --=20 R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk8krE0ACgkQEnfvsMMhpyU+1wCfd2xLdINKGKrwahup/bAij9r+ dvoAmwa2qoJe5XdKjrREf3mceql/gq7q =TeJK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120129021749.GA11891>