Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:38:35, vous avez écrit :
> Sure, why not kill one of the biggest strengths FreeBSD is known for > while we're at it... Or most obvious weakness ... The biggest strength was a good kernel, better than Linux, but this was years ago. > > Two questions: > > Who will provide the infrastructure to build me all of my packages the > day/hour/moment moment I need them and constantly build me the i386, > amd64, athlon-tbird optimized, k8-sse3 optimized, -O2 and -O3 optimized, > intel-core optimized, and intel-p3 optimized batches for all of my > machines? > > Who will constantly build and maintain my custom set of binary packages > and all their dependencies built with the exact specific OPTIONS that I > need and without the components that I don't want? This stuff you are mentioning is the precise reason why people have problems with the ports system. By the way, all your optimisations have next to zero impact on performance, and introduce a sizable probability of bugs. And the components you don't want use an infinitesimal part of your hard disk and nothing in your memory. At the end of the day this sort of feature buys no benefit at all and introduces an infinite combinatoric complexity for people wanting to test the ports system. _______________________________________________ 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"
