ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> 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
> > place).
> 
> Wrong.
> 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.

It occurs to me there are people who would call KDE4 a "poor" port.  I
suspect deleting that would not go over well.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20110909/da30d105/attachment.pgp