On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Hi,
Reference:
From: Doug Barton<do...@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:02 -0800
Message-id: <4ee7c39e.6040...@freebsd.org>
Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
I think you're missing the point a little.
The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I
think you should leave these changes bake for a while and let people
get comfortable with the changing status quo.
The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it must be the
default and/or in the base" rather than seeing ports as part of the
overall operating SYSTEM.
BSD is more conservative. More value given to stability of availability
of interfaces& tools etc,
Having things in ports doesn't make them less available. :)
It didn't used to. It risks it now, since in last months, some
ports/ have been targeted by a few rogue commiters purging, who
want to toss ports out from one release to another without warning
of a DEPRECATED= in previous release Makefiles.
which brings up teh possibility of 1st class ports.. which are kept
more as part of the system..
(sorry for sounding like a broken record..)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
