[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Vizion]

On Friday 21 October 2005 16:59,  the author Roman Neuhauser contributed to 
the dialogue on-
 Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: 

># linimon at lonesome.com / 2005-10-21 17:39:58 -0500:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 03:19:47PM -0700, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
>> > Seems like the quantity of ports available will eventually hit a plateau
>> > with the current two level directory structure.  No one is afraid to
>> > update the basic OS when its needed, even when it means using an entirly
>> > different file system ( ie. UFS1 -=> 2 ),  why be so scared when it
>> > comes to the ports system?

Good point

I know my opinion might be regarded as ecentric but, as I see it, the 
community is spending far too much od its developmental resopurces on 
advancing the operating system and far too little on bringing user interfaces 
and convenience up to date.

I see it as time to slow down on OS development and really focus on bringing 
the operating system management to a level that accords with comparable 
modern day standards. 

David


>>
>> Then PLEASE SUBMIT PATCHES.  Tested ones.  Involving portsmon.  Involving
>> the build cluster.  Involving marcusom tinderbox.  Involving FreshPorts.
>> Involving everything in bsd.*.mk.  Involving fixing up all the
>> dependencies after all the thousands of repocopies.
>
>    This is an absurd overreaction.
Agreed - 


-- 
40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters.
English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus.
 Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after 
completing engineroom refit.