Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
To:        David Holloway <daveh@tamis.com>
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970803113829.3843C-100000@shell.uniserve.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970803041611.16172A-100000@sage>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, David Holloway wrote:

> how different do ports-current and ports-stable have to be?
> (unless 2.x and 3.x are completely non portable 
>  between each other, in which case.. that is a mistake)

  Exactly.  Current developers need to agree to not break compatibility,
and the problem is solved.  Some ports (very few), that need access to
various kernel may need to broken, but the number of such should be small.

> the existence of ports-stable could be 
> considered a walnut-creek-cdrom issue.

  Huh?  How so?  Explain.

> --------------------------
> personally, I think perl sucks, it leads to poor code.

  Bad programmers make bad code.  Perl5 has all the elements of a
structured language.  However, it gives you enough flexibility to make bad
code, but so does C.

> (No we dont have to follow linux junkies and make perl5 default.

  Why not?  Many apps assume perl5, many due to the all extra structure
stuff in perl5.  Plus, FreeBSD has perl scripts in the tree.    These apps
should be able to take advantage of the extra structured elements (like
improved module support) too.  

Tom




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970803113829.3843C-100000>