Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:11:56 +0100 From: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> To: franco@lastsummer.de, 000.fbsd@quip.cz Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd@omnilan.de Subject: Re: git: 0668752 Revert "Framework: Introduce bsd.sponsor.mk" Message-ID: <202406252011.45PKBuSF050183@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> In-Reply-To: <C79C33A1-E208-4FDA-A4F3-47896A0DEB12@lastsummer.de> References: <088ebbb6-bd7f-4167-964f-9aa83d36c5e0@quip.cz> <C79C33A1-E208-4FDA-A4F3-47896A0DEB12@lastsummer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> wrote: > I also agree that ports should be for ports building. The makefile framework is very good. Why risk it by wedging packages over ports? I know this isn't proposed, but if, hypothetically, packages becomes the only option, I'll be switching to manually installing from tarballs. > Still one of the biggest issue is a shortage of committers. Not that there is a shortage of submissions. But having less committers makes it easier to enforce arbitrary rules by the inside circles. Yep. There are some great port committers, and it's a tireless job, but we need more. The ports-politics I've noticed over the last few years is ridiculous, as are the hoops you need to go through to get port updates committed. Offers of help have fallen on deaf ears, so presumably help isn't required?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202406252011.45PKBuSF050183>