On 2/7/21 04:48 , macports-dev-requ...@lists.macports.org wrote:
Hi Ken,
On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 11:35:58PM -0800, Ken Cunningham wrote:
although I was concerned about getting this pattern right before we
had too many of these to fix, it does seem the admins feel there's
really no issue to worry about here.
I don't like this tone, Ken. "The admins" have as much obligation to
provide infrastructure as anybody else in this project, which is none.
If you feel repackaging binary archives is a thing MacPorts should
support better, please invest the time to come up with patches that do
this, or find somebody that will.
If my interject, as a long-time user and observer of open-source
software and occasional contributor, this bit of conflict is a common
theme. There is always a tension between "doing it right" and "getting
it done". Ken seems to be leaning towards "getting it done". I
appreciate this a lot. I've been frustrated, at times, over the years by
languishing broken ports, especially when I offered patches/PRs that
received no response. What to do when there isn't consensus on a
particular issue or a new policy, like this one about binary-only ports?
"Doing it right" then means doing nothing at all. When volunteers are
willing to work on something but face this sentiment, they tend to stop
contributing. I don't know the answers but urge caution before things
get personal.
Regarding binary ports, I guess I don't understand what is the point.
Why not require users install the upstream binaries themselves and use
`path:` dependencies for things that depend on them? I know this isn't
ideal because it isn't automated, but I consider that a secondary issue.
Regards,
Jonathan
