From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep 26 16:00:27 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA02489
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:00:27 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA02475
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:00:24 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA23962; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:56:58 -0700
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, gryphon@healer.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG,
        freebsd-ports@freebs.org
Subject: Re: ports startup scripts 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Sep 1995 14:15:29 PDT."
             <199509262115.OAA08299@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:56:58 -0700
Message-ID: <23960.812156218@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> With respect, the porting time required is proportional to the portability
> of the code.  The overhead is realtive to how clean the code base is in
> the first place.

With equal respect, "porting" a product for any ISV of reasonable size
is a fair greater challenge than simply getting the software
"running."  The product needs to be separately QA'd and tech support
needs to understand any issues particular to any given platform (and
believe me, even for the same product on multiple platforms the tech
support problem gets skewed by local configuration issues).

If shipping on a new platform were like a calf roping contest where
you're allowed to throw your hands up in victory after the calf's feet
are well tangled, no matter now inelegant the knot, well then sure! :-)

					Jordan