Limitations of Ports System

Aryeh M. Friedman aryeh.friedman at
Fri Dec 14 14:29:00 PST 2007

Hash: SHA1

Remko Lodder wrote:
> David Southwell wrote:
>> On Friday 14 December 2007 08:08:54 Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>> --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 +0000 RW
>>> <fbsd06 at> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
>>>> "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman at> wrote:
>>>>> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and def with
>>>>> 345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we
>>>>> already set it for abc.
>>>> How do you know the user wants 345 set on both ports?
>>>> It might be a useful stable feature on "abc", but causes
>>>> lock-ups on "def"
>>> SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh, I can only infer what you
>>> are responding to and respond to him.  But let me state this
>>> emphatically in the hopes it will get through his thick skull.
>> I do wish you could acquire the maturity to distinguish between
>> the advantages that could come arguing your case clearly and
>> collegially and the disadvantages that acrue from being
>> personally antagonistic towards someone with whose analysis you
>> happen to disagree.
>> For me when someone becomes abusive they destroy their own
>> credibility and get to sound as though they believe their
>> opinions antitle them to be hateful and that their own views are
>> somehow godgiven.
>> IMHO Shouting make you less rather than more credible.
>>> \Please repeat that one hundred times until it gets through.
>> Endless repetition does not add strength to analysis!!
>>> No port should *ever* make decisions on a users behalf.
>>> Suggestions, yes (e.g. OPTIONS that are enabled by default.)
>>> Decisions, no.  If you depend on another port *and* on certain
>>> knobs in that dependency being enabled, then *tell* the user
>>> that during your port's install and let them decide how to
>>> handle it.  DO NOT enable those knobs yourself, no matter how
>>> tempting it may be.
>> IMHO You would sound more credible if you used the IMHO a bit
>> more!! You might also gain some respect if you followed your own
>> advice. Make suggestions for others to consider - do not decide,
>> in advance, they are thick skulled if they do not agree with
>> you!!
>>> It is beyond impossible for anyone to know what every user who
>>> is installing ports already has on their boxes or what they
>>> might want to add or ***what you might break***.  Once you
>>> begin making decisions for them, you could well stomp all over
>>> something that was functioning perfectly normally and break a
>>> critical box.
>>> DON'T DO IT.  That is so Microsoftian it's not funny.
>> IMHO Shouting, hectoring and lecturing does not add weight to
>> anyones point of view.
> These threads have gone far enough, please consider taking this off
> the FreeBSD mailinglists and discuss this privately. The majority
> does not like the current ideas and want to see something usefull
> first. People like Aryeh and David are not really persons that one
> would see as the persons generating the ports-infrastructure-ng
> till they have code.
> If you both keep pissing off people that have a fair share in the
> ports collection already, please do it by other means, dont crowd
> the mailinglists with it. Your ideas might be perfect in your world
> but they aint in ours (till you have shown working code).
> So please stfu till you have some code and be done with it <DOT>.

Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster.... we are making
fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or 2
threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT* producing a
system no one wants is pointless thus it is wise to gather as much
input as possible...  why is it that everyone who sees the whole
concept as being negative has offered no input what so ever about what
should be done (even saying "the current system is fine" is useful to us)

Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list