From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Nov 12 20:13:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E0337B401 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:13:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-63-207-60-146.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [63.207.60.146]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874AA43E4A for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:13:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45ED66B33; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D35A1213; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:15:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:15:26 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Miguel Mendez Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: About the recent PORTCOMMENT issue. Message-ID: <20021113041525.GE80589@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20021112210027.2e8c4e5a.flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="47eKBCiAZYFK5l32" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021112210027.2e8c4e5a.flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --47eKBCiAZYFK5l32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:00:27PM +0100, Miguel Mendez wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I've been following the thread on the PORTCOMMENT thing, and would like > to tell my humble thoughts on the issue. My idea simply is, if you want > PORTCOMMENT + other enhancements, why not simply adopt NetBSD's pkgsrc? > It was originally derived from FreeBSD's port system, but has evolved on > its own, and, IMHO, it's currently superior. What are people's views on > this? Granted, NetBSD's number of packages is well bellow FreeBSD's one, > but I think it would be beneficial for both to adopt a common (or at > least very similar) ports scheme. They have diverged too much to simply just change over to using theirs: both systems have features the other does not, leading to much pain, confusion and anger in the user community if we just switched. On the other hand, if you want to port over features from pkgsrc, please go ahead. Kris --47eKBCiAZYFK5l32 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE90dHdWry0BWjoQKURAlnDAJ98/EgZNQEbmzVmav0OLdcRDO+sKACcC0Jr Xl8/D83U5GM6DMyofDF7yM8= =8Aph -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --47eKBCiAZYFK5l32-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message