ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
Julian H. Stacey
jhs at berklix.com
Fri Sep 9 01:01:30 UTC 2011
Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
> > Having a poor port of an obscure
> > piece of software is better, than no port at all.
> A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first
A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be marked Broken.
Still a lot less work to polish than writing a port from scratch.
Still a damn sight more use to non programmers than no port.
Maybe it might just need a bit more work to speify more depends,
but still be working anyway.
> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
> the first place).
> Now guess what a poor port of an obscure piece of software is.
Something that's still useful cos with it a non programmer has
something that will work right now, with a MAINTAINER address he
can contact & be told "Encourage me & I'll improve it & send
omprovements to FreeBSD too"
> We're not there to run a museum of horrors, and we're not the starting
> point or sole provider of such software. In fact we should not even
> attempt to do that. People interested in that obscure software can
> either help themselves without a port, can organize the necessary
> assistance, or should not be running it.
BSD has a history of more niche/ mature/ specialist/ users & uses.
If you want Linux, use Linux
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script.
Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable.
http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17th Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ Oct.
More information about the freebsd-ports