[kde-freebsd] Re: HEADS UP: Big change to x11/kde3 (Read carefully!)

[Will Andrews]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 08:19:14PM -0400, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> I lost knowing that by installing x11/kde3 I was stuck with only ONE port
> I did not want. Now I have to deal with remembering ALL the ports (I
> always forget artsd, it doesnt associate itself with KDE very well) or
> deal with at least 6 ports I don't want. I don't use 'portupgrade' for

By definition, since you're so picky about what you like
installed, you're a power user that knows better and can feel
free to install exactly what's desired.

> everything. Believe it or not, the ports system is still designed to work
> with 'make', and asking me to forsake that for portupgrade is irritating.

You're absolutely right.  The sad fact of the matter is, however,
that there are still nasty bugs in FreeBSD ports that the make
code doesn't handle.  And there are missing features.  And so on.
Fixing these problems is something I and several other people are
working on, but really, portupgrade is the way to go right now.
Maybe in a year or so, it can go away.  But right now it's the
best way to use the ports tree.  You'll waste lots of time (and
not just your own) not using it.

And, by the way, "make" sucks.  Believe me.

> I was offering my *opinion* that more flexible dependencies would be nice.
> The ports system is quite capable of dealing with it.

Sure, but you want them delivered a specific way that involves
more code, and can possibly lead to confusing or misleading bug
reports.  Though we could ask everyone that installed the meta
port what their WANT_KDE variable in /etc/make.conf is, when/if
they submit a bug report..

> What I was NOT expecting was to be flamed for not agreeing with the port
> maintainers.

Your definition of a "flame" is a lot more sensitive than mine.
No one called anyone else an idiot or anything like that, so as
far as I'm concerned this is a peaceful bikeshed.

Regards,
-- 
wca