Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:18:07 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Yest one more: devel/crosssco Message-ID: <6232.891386287@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:49:54 PST." <XFMail.980331144954.shimon@simon-shapiro.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What you say is logically impossible. ANY system will get contaminated > with the ports building. To take this argument to its logical conclusion, If you'll read my posting again, you'll plainly see that I never once mentioned contamination resulting from the building of ports, I was simply discussing the OPERATING SYSTEM'S evolution on your system. A 2.2-3.0 upgraded system is not the best test vehicle for determining whether or not a given -current port works and if you want to do this kind of verification, you should start with a clean 3.0 system. Now if you're talking about the divergent problem of PORTS POLLUTION then I can simply say that I don't believe that there's ever been a serious effort to make sure that you absolutely cannot hose yourself by installing conflicting ports or packages. Some truly obvious clashes like the warring TCL or Tk ports have been dealt with, but I don't think that this necessarily extends across all 1300 ports. For that kind of conflict resolution, there's only one useful thing that you can post and that's the *specific* ports which are colliding with one another. Simply posting the failure output from a single port only shifts the majority of the burden onto someone else. :-) Jordan 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?6232.891386287>