On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Hi, > Reference: >> From: Doug Barton<dougb_at_FreeBSD.org> >> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:02 -0800 >> Message-id: <4EE7C39E.6040403_at_FreeBSD.org> > Doug Barton wrote: >> On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >>> Doug Barton wrote: >>>> On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>>>> I think you're missing the point a little. >>>>> >>>>> The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel >>>>> about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I >>>>> think you should leave these changes bake for a while and let people >>>>> get comfortable with the changing status quo. >>>> The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no >>>> matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature. >>>> >>>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the >>>> majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it must be the >>>> default and/or in the base" rather than seeing ports as part of the >>>> overall operating SYSTEM. >>> BSD is more conservative. More value given to stability of availability >>> of interfaces& tools etc, >> Having things in ports doesn't make them less available. :) > It didn't used to. It risks it now, since in last months, some > ports/ have been targeted by a few rogue commiters purging, who > want to toss ports out from one release to another without warning > of a DEPRECATED= in previous release Makefiles. > which brings up teh possibility of 1st class ports.. which are kept more as part of the system.. (sorry for sounding like a broken record..) >Received on Wed Dec 14 2011 - 04:29:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:21 UTC