On 2/12/2016 1:29 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 12.02.2016 03:41, John Marino wrote: > >> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT SOMETHING THAT BUILDS PORTS NEEDS THAT >> ITSELF IS BUILT FROM PORTS. You responded to something different. > If I want to use binary packages, I don't need synth, right? If I > want to use ports, I want to use ports, not binary package for synth + > ports. It is funny and annoying, that tool to manage PORTS better be > installed NOT FROM PORTS (or you need another toolchain not in base > system). > > It is not strict requirement, yes.
It is another fallacy. 1) you don't need Synth at all. It's a luxury for people that want things correct on their system. For people that are happy with risks (whether they choose to recognize and/or acknowledge them or not), PM and live-building from source is still available. 2) Anybody with a strict "I don't take packages at all" policy have much bigger concerns than building one more gcc. Their policy will hit them all over the place, so the "joke" here is the objection. You'll build everything you need from the entire tree, but you draw the line at one port? It is illogical to have that policy and then complain about the obvious consequences of that policy. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
