Limitations of Ports System

Aryeh M. Friedman aryeh.friedman at
Fri Dec 14 16:45:55 PST 2007

Hash: SHA1

Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> 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!

There is already an informal private one but until scope and some top
level features are decided the vast majority of discussion will be on
- -ports@ and as soon they are very little should be.
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list