> > So basically you are saying the ports developers, who have worked very > > hard, haven't built things exactly the way you want. > > Did I get that right? > > Nobody apparently cared about it (neither do I really). It's an idea to > be discussed (or not), not a proposal to have an answer right now.
Shrug. > > By the way who are you? > > A happy fairly long time user. They keep using. But your mails are going beyond by being critical of decisions made. > > Are you proposing to write a diff which handles all the cases, or > > are you offloading a proposal on other people -- a proposal you came > > up with in the last hour or so? > > A couple of years ago or so, it doesn't matter. It was discussed > privately and in some forums/lists; and it wasn't me who came up with > this idea first, certainly. I discussed world peace in a bar once. > If would literally take a couple of if's in Makefile for a price of > A LOT of saved bandwidth and disk space. Of course it would quadruple > the number of packages. You don't get to make the decisions, since you aren't doing the work. > > You can seperate things, and a year down the line that seperation > > doesn't work anymore. Then it all has to be redone. > > This can happen with a build system, then it used CMake, now it uses > ninja. Or then it relied on GTK+2, now it uses GTK+3. Or Qt. Or Tk. > Or previous ./configure no longer exist. Lots of words. No action.
