Limitations of Ports System

[Aryeh M. Friedman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Remko Lodder wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> 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 mlists.homeunix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman at gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> IT IS NOT THE JOB OF PORTS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR USERS.
>>>> 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)
>>
>
> simply because we have seen it failing a lot of times. Please take
> this offlist,discuss this and generate a nice PoC, then get back to
> us, till that time, DONT bother the ports list with it or any other
> list. You are the single reason for a HIGH S/N ration on MOST lists
> I am subscribed to that is a REALLY -BAD- thing.

Perhaps one reason it has failed is because there was not a wide
enough front end effort to decide what was really needed vs. what some
individual thought was needed... as to the s/n thing there would be
lot less if you actually debated on the technical merits of the
proposal and not the meta discussion of does something belong here or
list b or where ever... unless you think community input is completely
pointless I invite you to suggest an other medium that allows for it
without making is semi-obscure and hard to find.

>
> You Simply dont understand the way it works here and I can
> understand that till a certain point of view; take the advise;
> discuss it elsewhere, and get back with working code (yeah I repeat
> it twice because nobody seems to get through to you, and MANY
> people tried it already).
Oh I hear the message loud and clear and just happen to not agree with
the thinking behind it.   Namely ivory tower development has its place
but not here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHYwY+zIOMjAek4JIRAj/NAJ0aTnHnDejwXlujkc8AITtGqGxgywCgmoeh
FcWtuCJqPmepfIUCgA87+lM=
=S9wo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----