Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 01:24:46 -0800 (PST) From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> To: feld@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, jeffreybouquet@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2) Message-ID: <201411060924.sA69OiJp074172@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <1415234542.3472540.187608725.1C104533@webmail.messagingengine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've been following this discussion with growing alarm. A similarly elevated tone conversation led to dougb@ (the portmaster author) leaving the project a few years back, when pkg was first introduced. I think the project has lost as a result. As a user, I see and appreciate the initiative and strategic vision of some devs, but I also understand the value of stability, incremental change and back-ported solutions. Please let's find the way forward that does not alienate too many people. I urge the developers advocating significant changes not to dismiss user concerns. poudriere is a good example. It is an excellent tool that I on tier-2 systems. However, it is wise that this, again excellent tool, is optional. >Mixing packages and ports is *not* supported and never has been. This is >another cause of unnecessary bug reports. I'm not sure what you mean here. I've systems where I install 99% of packages from official repo servers, and then rebuild 1% from ports where the default options are no good for me. Is this not supported? Or do you mean something else? > >The only "tweaking" you should be doing is changing port build options, >and they'll be available via (sub)packages according to the current >roadmap. Only in rare circumstances should you need to manually build >ports. sub-packages sounds like another big change. So please give example of such circumstances. Thanks Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201411060924.sA69OiJp074172>