HEADS UP: freetype2 upgrade
DougB at FreeBSD.org
Sat Mar 27 08:58:59 PST 2004
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Saturday 27 March 2004 09:53, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > On Saturday 27 March 2004 08:43, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > > I did this slightly differently, but it's fixed now, thanks.
> > >
> > > Just curious: Any specific reason you didn't use REINPLACE_CMD?
> > LOL ... You should really check the archives for the answer to that
> > question.
> I can't find an answer for that question in the archives. You presented the
> argument that using sed instead of REINPLACE_CMD will make ports compatible
> with older versions of FreeBSD without adding extra dependencies,
I have argued since the very first second that REINPLACE was suggested
that it's a horrible idea. I still believe that's true, so why would I
do otherwise now?
> but xpdf depends on freetype2 which does use REINPLACE_CMD, turning
> your refusal to use it here into a mere token gesture
Yes, and your point? :)
> (I actually submitted this as a patch file to avoid exactly that sort
> of thing).
Well, to me, there is no, "this sort of thing." It's not a problem for
me that you prefer REINPLACE. I would expect that if for whatever reason
you happened to notice how I did this, and for some reason I can't
understand it causes you some consternation, you would simply shrug your
shoulders and think to yourself, "Boy, that Doug is sure a crusty old
bastard. But his stuff works, so I guess it's no big deal."
I think you (pl.) need to get your heads around the fact that we have
several hundred ports committers, many of whom have styles and ideas
that differ from those of the "ports intelligentsia" that seems to have
arisen over the last few years. And seriously, that needs to be ok.
Providing cool new APIs, and "helpful" items like REINPLACE is great,
and some of that is necessary in order to cope with the evolution of the
tree. But frankly, most of it is crap. This whole thread about changing
the format of the MAINTAINERS variable is a great example of that, as
I've said in that thread.
It may shock you to know that because I've been doing this for 6 years,
since back before there were even 1,500 ports, I've actually *seen* a
lot of the evolution of the system, and might actually have a few good
ideas about things. Regardless of the quality of my ideas however, one
thing I *have* seen more of lately is ports maintainers giving up on the
rat race of trying to keep up with a ports infrastructure that's
constantly changing out from under them. I'm pretty close to that point
myself, actually. If they're not careful, our all too clever ports gurus
are going to find themselves sitting all alone on an island, wondering
why so many ports say "MAINTAINER= ports at freebsd.org."
Of course, these are just my thoughts. Part of me hopes I'm wrong.
This .signature sanitized for your protection
More information about the freebsd-ports