Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 08:08:18 +1000 From: David Nugent <davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> Cc: dmaddox@scsn.net, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <199708022208.IAA15046@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 16:10:07 EST." <Pine.BSF.3.96.970802155632.17562D-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Ah, yes. There are many snakes in this pit. One I have not seen > recently in the discussion in the inherent problem of > incorporating into the base system a substantial component that > is on a fundamentally different development schedule than the > rest of the OS. For things with a relatively long update cycle, > such as gcc, this isn't a huge problem, but for more rapidly > developing items, like tcl, users stand a good chance of wanting > an update between FreeBSD releases. Our only easy to use interim > update mechanism is the ports collection. Absolutely. This is much more succinct and clear than my own argument, and it is THE fundamental and most important issue at stake here. Well said. Regards, David David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708022208.IAA15046>