Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:34:38 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Increase in the number of ports: upgrade xorg to 7.2... Message-ID: <20070608153438.e2b17bc9.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20070608151456.6CC6.GERARD-SEIBERT@seibercom.net> References: <294439d20706081139l241ec4b6p83347ccb9d5847bc@mail.gmail.com> <d7195cff0706081157q35a3d745l5ad5d30f952fe694@mail.gmail.com> <20070608151456.6CC6.GERARD-SEIBERT@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In response to Gerard <gerard@seibercom.net>: > On June 08, 2007 at 02:57PM illoai@gmail.com wrote: > > > xorg is now 180-230 some-odd tiny packages (ports) > > instead of the old -clients, -server, -libraries blobs. > > > > It seems to work okay, and minor updates are far less > > strenuous. I give it five years to either prove itself or > > all the developers to go mad and sacrifice their firstborn > > in some wicked ritual to the sun-god. > > I am not totally convinced. If one small package is updated that is > depended on by 10 other package that in turn are depended on by a like > number of other packages, what has been really gained by breaking > everything into small bits? They may be easier to maintain; however > the impact on updating the system seems like it would be minimal. No. As long as the communication interface between modules (whether it be an API or something else) doesn't change, it's perfectly possible to update a single module without updating anything else. In practice, I've updated 5 or 6 little sub-ports of xorg 7 since I did the switch, and haven't had to rebuild all of xorg yet. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070608153438.e2b17bc9.wmoran>