Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:26:39 -0500 From: "Patrick Bihan-Faou" <patrick@mindstep.com> To: <kientzle@acm.org>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: <libh@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Making the Packages System Better Message-ID: <01b601c043dd$75345050$040aa8c0@local.mindstep.com> References: <39DCC860.B04F7D50@acm.org> <20001006155542.A29218@cichlids.cichlids.com> <39F3CDD7.15B889E7@acm.org> <20001023190412.B507@cichlids.cichlids.com> <39F47E98.4BB647AA@acm.org> <20001023202244.B10374@cichlids.cichlids.com> <39F48F4A.38D458C2@acm.org> <39FCF244.5A8C8E59@newsguy.com> <39FDC12E.304B0011@acm.org> <39FE2406.150CA3B1@newsguy.com> <00cb01c042f1$1a347190$040aa8c0@local.mindstep.com> <39FE562C.714DBE7C@newsguy.com> <39FFCD73.7364C2BF@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well Tim I really thank you for that clear description of what I had in mind when I initialy posted in this thread. I for one would really be interested in seeing your scripts. And if anybody is interested, I will try to implement support for this scheme in the current port system and of course supply back the patches to the necessary files (most likely the various *.mk files for the port collection). As mentioned there is no reason why both approaches can not be supported by the ports collection. I am sure that a global PORT_INSTALL_METHOD make variable could satisfy proponents of both approaches. Now let's not start a holly-flame-war on this issue. I really believe that the approach that has been described is sound. However I would also like to hear about the arguments of people who oppose this. Maybe there is something that we missed and that will byte us badly at some point ? Patrick. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01b601c043dd$75345050$040aa8c0>