Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports

[Garance A Drosihn]

At 2:12 PM +0200 5/24/04, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>Garance A Drosihn <drosih at rpi.edu> writes:
>>  The third proposal is basically:
>>       [rewrite the ports system from scratch]
>>  So, should we pursue any of this?
>
>You can't possibly seriously believe that the project will adopt
>this model without first seeing proof that it works and has
>significant advantages (and no significant disadvantages) over
>the existing model.

Uh, I didn't say anyone had to accept the final result.  I merely
ASKED (note: I *ASKED**) if my ideas seemed like they were worth
pursuing.  If the "people who matter" in the ports collection are
certain that they don't like any of these ideas, then there isn't
much point in me allocating resources to implement the ideas as
fast as possible.  I'll just put it on a back burner.  No harm
done.  No need for sarcastic comments on what I "seriously
believe".

What I seriously believe is that it is quite likely that the
present organization of ports can be improved on.  I don't know
what the perfect ports collection would be like, but I seriously
believe that "This Ain't Perfect".  Thus I am exploring a number
of ideas which (I seriously believe) will result in a better
ports collection.

I certainly might be *wrong* on that, but that *is* what I "seriously
believe".  I have spent a significant amount of time and some money
in investigating these ideas, and I have repeatedly asked for feedback
on what people thought about my ideas.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih at rpi.edu