Hi! > > So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support > > two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers > > involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would > > it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ? > > Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue. It's one that has dogged > FreeBSD for some time now i.e., to either A) manage change-control with a > long term perspective with the goal of growing or at least retaining the > installed base of end-users or B) with a short-term perspective for the > benefit of our generous and skilled developers.
I've never met bapt, who implemented pkg, or bdrewery, but from what I can see, implementing pkg was not a short-term project for them. It was the only way out from the technical burden of the old scheme, they saw the problem, and went to solve it. If someone A wants someone B else to work harder for his own benefit: You can always hope that B is doing it, but you can not expect it. And it's a bit strange to disparage such a person with a snide remark like 'short-term perspective'. It's always easy to argue from the sideline. -- p...@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"