Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:41:30 -0500 From: Pete Fritchman <petef@databits.net> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: hetzels@westbend.net, jeh@FreeBSD.ORG, joseph@randomnetworks.com, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nbm@mithrandr.moria.org Subject: Re: Multiple packages from one port Message-ID: <20020103164130.D82299@databits.net> In-Reply-To: <200201032124.g03LOBf54171@aldan.algebra.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:24:08PM -0500 References: <20011229120106.B53652@databits.net> <200201032124.g03LOBf54171@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
++ 03/01/02 16:24 -0500 - Mikhail Teterin: | > I would guess that a majority of our users tend to use packages... | | Do you have any numbers? I don't... Um, no, hence 'guess'. | > I've introduced about 10 of my friends to FreeBSD in the past few | > months, all of them being fairly unix illiterate. They all *love* | > packages. I can't get them to touch ports -- they think it's too | > complicated. | | Perhaps, you are not explaining it to them well enough?.. Why is | | cd /usr/ports/whatever/you-want | make install clean | | any more complicated, than | | cd /cdrom/ports/packages/All | pkg_add you-want.tgz - there can be errors when compiling a port - confusion about options to select with ports that have a dialog(1) configure script - remembering to update ports - the concept of an "old" work/ directory (remember, these are people using unix for the first time) - takes too long (well, this doesn't come under complicated, but while I'm listing complaints/problems they had...) I'm sure there are more reasons it can be complicated, these are all I remember hearing from my friends. This stuff isn't as easy or logical to some people as it is to most of us... | > | Ok, thanks. Pardon my ignorance. What I really meant to say, is they | > | should all be made into one port -- with options, just like | > | kde2-i18n (or php, or ghostscript). Unless, of course, we are in a | > | race to hit a certain port-number growth target :-) | > | > I agree with you -- they *should*. This would be ideal. | | > Instead of fighting over frontpage ports, let's brainstorm and try to | > come up with something useful to build multiple packages from one port | > -- this would be a great feature. | | As I indicated before, I personally am not very interested in packages. | The reason I started (and continue on) this thread, is because the many | frontpage-?? ports once again underscore a troublesome trend -- useless | ports are added to the system _purely_ for the sake of having pre-built | packages. IMHO, bento and packages are outside of the ports domain, and | the integrity of the ports system should not be sacrificed for them. If you aren't interested in packages, then ignore the ports designed with the only purpose of making a specialized package and let the people who _are_ interested in packages deal with making a new system and having these ports removed in time. -- Pete Fritchman [petef@(databits.net|freebsd.org|csh.rit.edu)] finger petef@databits.net for PGP key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020103164130.D82299>