Bug in ports howto question

[Roman Neuhauser]

# abowhill at blarg.net / 2003-11-26 00:39:57 -0800:
> On  0, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser at bellavista.cz> wrote:
> :# abowhill at blarg.net / 2003-11-25 01:44:26 -0800:
> :> On  0, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser at bellavista.cz> wrote:
> :
> :    strange date :)
> 
> Is that the time stamp from mail I'm sending out?

    apparently.
 
> :> Unfortunately, unlike other platforms, to send and receive mail on
> :> FreeBSD, you need to a little about how mail works. I did not know a
> :> lot in this area, before I started.
> : 
> :    Unfortunately? I don't agree with your assessment of the fact, but
> :    that's just me.
> 
> It's not unfortunate to know, it's just unfortunate to have to learn
> under pressured circumstances. It would have been nice if it worked the
> first time :)

    hm, sysinstall could probably ask for an IP of your smarthost, and
    configure sendmail accordingly.
 
> :> After learning a bit, I am left with the impression that internet
> :> mechanisms and standards that support mail are complicated and
> :> somewhat badly-designed. Evolutionary. (too many specialized
> :> protocols, headers, acronyms)
> :> 
> :> Despite all this, the configuration task is not that bad if you have
> :> good instructions, but in principle, is overkill for submitting
> :> ports. It's a little like trying to do square-foot gardening with a
> :> combine. But if you have the time and documentation, you can get it
> :> to work properly.
> :
> :    Do you say port submission should be taken out using a separate
> :    mechanism?
> 
> If you mean that ports should be accepted by some other mechanism?
> 
> Yes, definitely.

    I disagree. There's already an establish channel for patch
    submissions, why duplicate efforts?

> I think there could be a mini-cvs utility, just with a few features
> defined to allow new ports to be submitted to a different repository,
> separate from ports (which is already . branch).
> 
> I also think it would be cool if there were a freebsd third-party 
> developer portal that kept this repository, accounts etc. like 
> SourceForge, but for ports. Maybe call it PortsForge :)
> 
> That way, maintainers and new contributors could keep an open source
> base of stuff they committed to the portal, while committers could
> peruse the portal for new software to carry-over to the ports collection.

    this has been discussed on this list, started, and announced here
    during the last two weeks.
 
-- 
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message.    see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html