Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 13:58:14 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: ade@demon.net Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <16217.870555494@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 21:53:35 BST." <E0wulBA-00008k-00@genghis.eng.demon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, given the major amount of work this is going to require in > order to do things effectively, surely the first step is a > mandate from the core team that a particular 'way forward' is > the right way to go. IMHO, 'leaving things as they are' isn't > a valid option in this case, since we can see that things are > starting to break down, as the system gets more complex. > > Once the decision is made, then things can progress to discussion > about how best to implement the decision, followed by resourcing > the whole thing. > > Until the decision is made about the way forward, however, then > much of the talk here is moot. I think you're suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of how these things work. :-) The core team can't really "mandate" anything without a much stronger fait-accompli (e.g. the work essentially has to be ready to fold in and the new mechanism approved in implementation as well as concept). We've tried that before in the past, and all that's ever come of it is an empty mandate - it doesn't serve as any kind of tie-breaker or incentive for forward progress (you're probably thinking of a more corporate model where once you have your "vision" you can go essentially *order* your minions to go carry it out for you). So it's really the other way around - until a truly defensible system of package layering and installation is both proposed and proven through some set of Makefile diffs which demonstrate the viability of the concept, it's moot. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16217.870555494>