On 25/06/2024 09:39, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
Revert "Framework: Introduce bsd.sponsor.mk"
This reverts commit 274cd4df4dcce0a9aa78da47bb6e35ab3dbcbf8c
See also: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D44487
> In D44487#1014651, @mat wrote:
>>
>> but we want users to stop using ports and use packagesPiotr
Kubaj <pkubaj_at_anongoth.pl> wrote on
This in fact *will force users into dependency hell like on Linux*.
Pushing people to use packages sounds comical. Are we really talking
about those packages that are not built at all, like Signal Desktop and
many others?
But I remain calm. We're still many years away from FreeBSD packages
being where Linux packages have been for years. So anyone who wants a
non-default version (PHP, Python, Perl...) still has to build their
package set in Poudriere or use raw ports.
To use clear words: I dislike paternalism and general decisions made
under the hat of portmgr@ during the recent years.
There are plenty of Linux distributions doing it 'right' and making it
easy for 'the users'.
Please stop forcing FreeBSD into that direction - you will loose those
'users' able and willing to dig deeper and improve/fix/extend software.
There are portmgr@ people deleting foreign ports for no reason and now
_you_ decide that Gleb's bsd.sponsor.mk needs approval - Approval from
people who destroy one of the key principals of FreeBSD.
This is ridiculous. Users will need to approve portmgr@ decisions! Your
revert woulnd't get approval!
But better not to ask but to dictate of course. That way will allow
portmgr@ to continue dismantling FreeBSD from the inner.
To return to the topic:
I liked the idea very much.
It is very important that skilled people are supported by their employer
to work on OpenSource projects, which directly or indirectly involves
FreeBSD.
Naming sponsors might attract more skilled people - not those looking
for arbitrary company paying them their bills, but those enthusiasts and
smart ones, who have chosen FreeBSD instead of any fancy Linux
distribution, because on FreeBSD it's much easier to participate or add
customization in a sensible and fertile manner.
ports/ was and still is a very important entrance. FreeBSD will decay if
it only has consumers! (and if ports/ is continued to be made
distracting users)
If there are only paid people left to do the work, FreeBSD won't
improve, simply because there will be much less creative, fresh and
individual ideas! This especially would harm FreeBSD since it hasn't
billions to spend just add human resources by try'n'error.
(Look at any commercial software product after 10 years evolution with
paid people - now name ONE, which is better today than it was 10 years
ago. Better for the customer/user, not for the vendor! As time goes by,
the advantage relation will turn imho, but that's another topic)
Naming sponsors imho improves the willingness of employers trying out
active OpenSource partnerships and allowing their employees to spend
time not only on CONSUMING OpenSource, but on participating. This can be
for mutual benefit. OpenSource doesn't work with consumers only, and
supplier resources aren't available for free!
Sponsorship naming was always an appreciated additional meta info.
If you need time to lift this to be beneficial for packages too, take
your time, but don't remove it just because _you_ or portmgr@ as a whole
want users to force using packages. Please stop dictating FreeBSD users!
