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.
Short-term perspective != short-term project considering they're both relative to the ecosystem.
It was the only way out from the technical burden of the old scheme, they saw the problem, and went to solve it.
Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing here. Most of us fully support pkgng, it's devs and goals. We can't say this loud enough: Thanks Baptist! Thanks Brian! Thanks everyone who contributed! This is, however, tangental from discussions of how to implement change control for the greatest good and least pain. Such project management is critical IMO for the future viability of FreeBSD, its end-users and businesses that use it.
From another perspective it is a bit of a chicken and egg issue
considering that devs by nature, myself included, enjoy new features and new code more than fixing bugs or long-term planning. Bugs aside I think we all would much rather be writing code or tweaking systems used by 100s of thousands rather than simply thousands. The point I'm trying to make is: A) a larger FreeBSD end-users is worth the effort, and B) the way to get there, IMO, is with fewer upgrade hassles and better end-user APIs MO perhaps but based on real world decisions at real world companies.
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.
Definetly not on the sideline having spent the better part of 30 years years working with Unix and 21 with FreeBSD. For the sake of open discussion regarding substantive issues, however, I beg you take back or better substantiate such grossly unfair and inaccurate characterizations. Roger _______________________________________________ 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"