Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 20:15:26 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Miguel Mendez <flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: About the recent PORTCOMMENT issue. Message-ID: <20021113041525.GE80589@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20021112210027.2e8c4e5a.flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> References: <20021112210027.2e8c4e5a.flynn@energyhq.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021113041525.GE80589>