* Deanna Phillips [2006-07-21]: > > I completely disagree. The question boils down to what our > > ports tree is supposed to be. You want it to be a packaging > > system for open source software. I want it to be a packaging > > system for any software, even closed source commercial > > software. > > To what end? Take over the desktop? Total World Domination?
Installing all software in a sensible way, conforming to OpenBSD policy. On the way deal with the worst braindamage software developers come up with. > One of the greatest things for me, as a user, has been that I can > completely trust the decisions made about what does and does not go > into this OS. Even ports. Take that away and what do you have? Those decisions don't exist. We add ports for all sorts of crappy software. Submit a port for an interesting software full of non-obvious bugs and it will be committed (assuming a committer notices the submission). Just look at nagios and it's related ports, total crap but there's nothing better out there, I needed the port, so I did it. This simplifies life for people in a similar situation (having to use nagios), while it certainly is no statement of encouragement to use it. I'd do this for any software I use where some kind of distfile is downloadable (that's where I draw my personal line, but we even have a port of Maple, where you would need a cd to install it). I think I made my point clear, so please answer in private mail if you want to discuss anything. Nikolay -- OpenPGP: 0x2036A3A7 - 64E4 7D77 F5C0 EA47 A901 51EF 6E54 6E4F 2036 A3A7 "It's all part of my Can't-Do approach to life." Wally
