Doug Barton wrote: > This might be a good time to re-evaluate how we handle those ports in > the first place. How many of them involve actual C or C++ code that > needs to be compiled to run, vs. simply re-packaging javascript bits?
Only enigmail comes to my mind. (but it is even a bit more evil, it requires the original sources and can't be directly installed) > For those that we are simply > repackaging, what's the value in doing that, vs. simply allowing > users to download them from mozilla's site? Well, in vastly multi-user places there might of course be good reasons to have a single centralized package instead of one-for-each-user-account, but OTOH... places like that are not much more used in this a-few-PCs-per-household world we currently live in. Still, I feel that as a *somewhat cleaner* choice and go to the extent of creating a port for every extension I do use (on my single-user machines), but I'm not quite sure I'd be able to justify that with real arguments other than a warm fuzzy feeling. ;) -- Lapo Luchini - http://lapo.it/ "If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." (Weinberg's Second Law) _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
