Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:54:23 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, Julien Laffaye <jlaffaye@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [ECFT] pkgng 0.1-alpha1: a replacement for pkg_install Message-ID: <4D94959F.3090507@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinibaaEHznTQfLQD_GfOKkj2BynaWRCKEsWBh=3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110325101111.GA36840__48943.3474642739$1301049771$gmane$org@azathoth.lan> <4D90C8EA.2000901@freebsd.org> <AANLkTinaz9Y6kgjQvdS1Pu%2Bkay50DUs6FubcbCxcc3W2@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=uPaaxUVUDL3CPWByOeOZ2TjziUbrY7pJLQyAa@mail.gmail.com> <4D9218DF.8060305@freebsd.org> <AANLkTi==hy7L3arOONozRmmMmHRniH6ch8iot7tFyf0R@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinibaaEHznTQfLQD_GfOKkj2BynaWRCKEsWBh=3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 29/03/2011 23:29 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: > ok let's try to say it simpler :) the main goal is to keep it simple > for now, simple and rock solid, so that we can replace pkg_install and > do some cleanup in the ports tree, add the "must have" features while > doing that. And only when we will be ready for that and that portmgr > have decided that it is mature enough to replace pkg_install, only > after that we will start improving with new features and new changes. > > I thinks changing the package name scheme is not a "must have" > feature, it for sure is and intresting feature, but what about pushing > to after the first stable release? managing architecture as we plan to > do it is enough imho. Oh, yes, I realize all this and totally agree with it. Given how huge and how visible our ports and packages systems are, it's better to be slow and cautious. All the ideas that I suggested were more for the "next step" than for now. Thank you for the work! -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D94959F.3090507>