Limitations of Ports System

[Mark Kirkwood]

Skip Ford wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>   
>> 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...
>>     
>
> And that's fine if that's how you prefer to work, but everyone's point is
> that it has nothing to do with the current ports system at all so the talk
> doesn't belong on a mailing list dedicated to the current ports system.
> It's just noise here.  Research for a new system from ports@ users belongs
> on a list dedicated to the new system.
>
>   

That is a little unfair IMHO - Aryeh has to gather information from 
those who use the current system, and @ports is clearly the place for 
that! Now he may listen to all, some or none of the points of view he 
receives... and that may well determine the success or otherwise of his 
ports-ng process - but I don't think he is doing anything wrong.

I agree that a new list (ports-ng or similar) for this would be a good 
thing to start *soon*, so that those folks (probably from *this* list) 
who are interested can see what is happening and maybe help if they like!

Cheers

Mark