Matthias Andree wrote:
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
Bullshit!
I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we
should stop it.
No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked.
FreeBSD
Hi,
Reference:
From: Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100
Message-id:
cadlo83-zcvaeyznw5dtehv1tosburzllr2hjxfjrx_qewph...@mail.gmail.com
Chris Rees wrote:
On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
Matthias
Chris Rees wrote:
On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
Bullshit!
I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we
Hi,
Reference:
From: Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:01 +0100
Message-id:
CADLo838gUfrGhOYWYBym=5yiatyjy8r9bndxcu8gmbjebre...@mail.gmail.com
Chris Rees wrote:
On 13 September 2011 18:54, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
Hi,
On 13 Sep 2011 20:57, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote:
Hi,
Reference:
From: Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:01 +0100
Message-id: CADLo838gUfrGhOYWYBym=
5yiatyjy8r9bndxcu8gmbjebre...@mail.gmail.com
Chris Rees wrote:
On 13 September
On 9/13/11 4:52 PM, Chris Rees wrote:
I'm rather tired of being called to defend myself,
I see no reason why you should find it necessary. Bravo for the work
you've done.
I've plenty of better things to be doing.
Agreed. Julian, amongst others this past few weeks, have successfully
made
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
Bullshit!
I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we
should stop it.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
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
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
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
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, 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).
Highly debatable.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:15:04PM -0400, Mikhail T. wrote:
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature.
However, it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you
consider the number of those ports that are
On 08.09.2011 04:42, Greg Byshenk wrote:
For many people, what THERE IS A PORT OF IT actually -means- is
that the user can go to ports and install a -working- version of
the software, not merley that there is something called 'IT'
somewhere in the ports tree that may or may not work.
Some
Mikhail T. wrote:
Having to deal with RedHat's yum at work, I got to say, I'd rather be
building from source, than installing from consistent packages, that
somebody else built *to their* tastes.
Fedora crap is a very bad example. The canonical example of a binary
distribution which *works* is
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).
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
Wait -- what? Why should something not be ported if it's not popular?
--
Chad Perrin [
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature. However,
it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you consider the
number of those ports that are either actually or effectively unmaintained.
Support? What
16 matches
Mail list logo
