Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:15:41 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> To: Greg Byshenk <freebsd@byshenk.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, jhs@berklix.com, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, perryh@pluto.rain.com, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs) Message-ID: <4E68CE0D.2050000@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20110908084205.GG13219@portland.byshenk.net> References: <201109050933.p859XEbP004874@fire.js.berklix.net> <4E64C35A.50004@FreeBSD.org> <4e65b42e.M5K%2Bto11vAdk/UTk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E6581E2.1060502@FreeBSD.org> <4e671817.ddHMkPbq9dJ7tLMz%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E66EFC5.3020201@FreeBSD.org> <4e67a3b2.CVKcpQ8KQzuo8BP%2B%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E67F41F.70401@FreeBSD.org> <4E680908.3060708@aldan.algebra.com> <20110908084205.GG13219@portland.byshenk.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08.09.2011 04:42, Greg Byshenk wrote:
> For many people, what "THERE IS A PORT OF IT" actually -means- is
> that the user can go to ports and install a -working- version of
> the software, not merley that there is something called 'IT'
> somewhere in the ports tree that may or may not work.
Some ports -- both maintained or disowned -- will always be behind the
upstream. Some ports will always be better than others. Simply removing
those, where the perceived quality drops below somebody's subjective
threshold does not improve quality. Having a poor port of an obscure
piece of software is better, than no port at all. And, yes, this is the
core of the disagreement... Yours,
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E68CE0D.2050000>