On Tuesday, 7. December 2004 23:32, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why > >not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the > >way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there > >either, its insanity). > > * With KDE, you get one big update every release. With GNOME, you > can get new features, fixes, and improvements as soon as they become > available. It's just a different design model. Each has its merits; > each has its faults. > > * With KDE, you have one kdelibs port that takes about 80 minutes to > build. With GNOME, you have about 20 ports that take about 4 minutes > each to build. 6 of one, half dozen of another. That's purely > metaphorical, of course: using ccache, I can build all GNOME meta- > ports in about 6.5 hours; building the KDE meta-port takes about 9. > > * portupgrade(1) works perfectly if you run it regularly. If you > introduce inconsistencies, portupgrade will fail no matter how you run > it, or even if you build the updates from the command-line. > > * If you don't like the deployment structure of GNOME, talk to GNOME, > not FreeBSD. You wouldn't complain to your TV manufacturer if you > didn't like a movie you rented.
Last but not least: ports/UPDATING is witness to the fact that a simple portupgrade -a won't always work for upgrading KDE either, in particular between feature releases (second number in version changes). And do expect hell to break loose when KDE 4 arrives... -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
pgpHD36tKc3lA.pgp
Description: PGP signature