On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
Yes, we realize that you, and a small minority of other interested parties, have this belief in spite of endless repetition of the reasoning, by the people who do the actual work to keep the ports tree functional, as to why your desire to keep every port is not a workable solution.
I'm one of this "small minority" and can't recall hearing the actual "reasoning" repeated even once -- without every argument being soundly rebutted by myself and other "interested parties".
The last discussion, that I can recall ended with an assurance, that the matter is being discussed by the portmgr@ and that the discussion's results will soon be delivered to the unwashed masses.
If, indeed, the sound arguments exist, then, perhaps, they can be summarized on a web-page of some sort -- together with the attempts at rebuttal and the counter-rebuttals? There is clearly a vocal share of contributors that currently disagree with portmgr's line -- and our claim to represent a sizable portion of users is just as good as your claim, that we are nothing but a "small minority".
Please, convince us so we can all go along with the consensus -- and relieve you from having to repeat your reasoning (whatever it is) monthly... Thanks!
However the fact that no one has made a peep about them is a pretty strong indication that they were simply dead weight that we were carrying for no good reason.
You've gone from "small minority of other interested parties" to "no one has made a peep" in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not really resonated despite the "endless repetition"...
-mi _______________________________________________ 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"
