Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:58:24 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig99D3B3C59E5EFFBCAE99E926
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>>> 1. Ports are not modular
>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
>> is coming,
>> but it takes time
> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bi=
n,
> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....).
Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about
here. Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing?
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enig99D3B3C59E5EFFBCAE99E926
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk/pa6kACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxUsQCfZGvoNLUvompC9K9qW4KqPUFF
WO0An2uXQiKlpDEd+RLbhL1bBU75C1HG
=h13G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig99D3B3C59E5EFFBCAE99E926--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE96BA0.6040005>