From owner-freebsd-www  Thu Dec 12 03:02:40 1996
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-www>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id DAA05675
          for www-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id DAA05668;
          Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA04019; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:02:28 -0800 (PST)
To: dicen@hooked.net
cc: torstenb@freebsd.org, John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>, asami@freebsd.org,
        ports@freebsd.org, www@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/2190: need cross-reference to xpdf from X11 ports tree 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:45:14 GMT."
             <32AF71BA.794BDF32@hooked.net> 
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:02:28 -0800
Message-ID: <4015.850388548@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-www@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I totally agree here. The ports management system (or lack there of)
> needs major improvement. The package system isn't much better.

We arrive at this point about once every 6 months.  In order to save
time for all concerned, here's the script we generally use:

0. Someone complains about an obvious shortcoming of the ports & packaging
   system which has been known about for (checks watch) going on 3 years
   now.

1. I respond with "we know both systems are deficient, please submit your
   prototype code for improving it and we'll start the review process; a
   catalog of shortcomings we already have, it's working solutions we need
   now."

2. The original folks complaining about the ports/package system
   come back with "oh, I'm much too busy/inexperienced/tired to actually
   do anything about it right now, I just thought you'd want to know."

3. A few people who are genuinely motivated to work on the problem but
   truly far too busy to do anything else submit tentative proposals
   "in case anyone should want to pick [the problem] up."  Someone also
   usually suggests the PRMs about this point and starts a whole
   sub-discussion on their shortcomings.

4. I submit a longer proposal based on several of the other proposals
   which only one or two people actually read, the rest going "damn,
   there's another really long proposal from jkh!  I'll, erm, file it."

5. Most agree that there have been some "really good ideas discussed, yep,
   and wouldn't the ports/packages system be better off if someone
   implemented them.  Yep."

6. Silence.

7. Unconditional branch to step 0.

:-)

						Jordan