Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > > > Having a poor port of an obscure > > piece of software is better, than no port at all. > > A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first > place).
Wrong. A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be marked Broken. Still a lot less work to polish than writing a port from scratch. Still a damn sight more use to non programmers than no port. Maybe it might just need a bit more work to speify more depends, but still be working anyway. > An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > the first place). Rubbish! > Now guess what a poor port of an obscure piece of software is. Something that's still useful cos with it a non programmer has something that will work right now, with a MAINTAINER address he can contact & be told "Encourage me & I'll improve it & send omprovements to FreeBSD too" > We're not there to run a museum of horrors, and we're not the starting > point or sole provider of such software. In fact we should not even > attempt to do that. People interested in that obscure software can > either help themselves without a port, can organize the necessary > assistance, or should not be running it. BSD has a history of more niche/ mature/ specialist/ users & uses. If you want Linux, use Linux Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17th Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ Oct. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"