From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 26 19:42:53 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E86106566B for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:42:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mva@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtprelay01.ispgateway.de (smtprelay01.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61878FC12 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:42:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [89.182.27.31] (helo=localhost) by smtprelay01.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Sjbev-0000Ra-Ly for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:42:46 +0200 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:45:02 +0200 From: Marcus von Appen To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120626194502.GH2540@medusa.sysfault.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rCwQ2Y43eQY6RBgR" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Df-Sender: MzIwMDk1 Subject: Re: Port system "problems" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Marcus von Appen List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:42:53 -0000 --rCwQ2Y43eQY6RBgR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Mark Felder wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:42:54 -0500, Marcus von Appen > wrote: > > > > That said, I might assume that the sqlite solution is faster, but noone > > can see that yet. > > > > The new system will be much, much better overall and people just need to > stop making conclusions without knowing all the facts. Then please provide facts. Do not get me wrong - I neither want to be nit-picking (well, just a bit ;-) nor I want to fight that idea by any means, but there was just a "sub-packages with StageDir will improve everything" rant without any arguments. > It's going to be a heavily revamped system so people should stop > comparing it to our current architecture. It's only similar on the > surface. Why should we stop to compare it? It aims to replace an architecture and hence performs similar tasks and tries to fulfill certain needs. That should qualify it for comparision in one or another way. Once more: I do not oppose the idea, but right now I do not see any sustainable concept nor anything else. I do not want all those working on it to run into a situation in which more people are unhappy with the solution provided. I also do not want to work with a system that burdens me with tasks that I do not _want_ to fulfill. This is why I ask about all those things, so I can throw in my to cents to make the system appealing for me. And thus I want to understand at least the big picture, concept and workflows. Cheers Marcus --rCwQ2Y43eQY6RBgR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/qET4ACgkQi68/ErJnpkebfACfSVnxGrGBsre+TRw+wQhi6yZr 6c4AoKKuaNxZT5vcfkxtVeMdgT+oEaeR =qBhQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rCwQ2Y43eQY6RBgR--