Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:27:01 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: nbm@mithrandr.moria.org Cc: hetzels@westbend.net, jeh@FreeBSD.ORG, sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, joseph@randomnetworks.com, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www Makefile ports/www/frontpage-es Makefiledistinfo pkg-comment Message-ID: <200201021727.g02HR4f30365@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20011230144820.A7229@mithrandr.moria.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 Dec, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: >> But this is off-topic -- it is up to the "Bento team" to devise >> the new scheme -- the existing "one package per port" one is >> insufficient. > No, like everything, it's up to the person complaining to actually get > the work done - either by motivating others to do the work, or doing > it themselves. My complaint is not, that the package building scheme is broken (it seems to be, but I personally don't care). It is about the number of "sattelite" ports, whose ONLY reason for existence is automatic package building. Such ports are inconsistent and confusing (where are all the incarnations of php and ghostscript, for example? Or the separate ports for each of the kde2 i18n parts?) and should be removed, IMO. -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201021727.g02HR4f30365>