Limitations of Ports System

Aryeh M. Friedman aryeh.friedman at
Fri Dec 14 19:06:13 PST 2007

Hash: SHA1

It is too bad I am in your killfile because you will not get this ;-)

> Yet the proponents of the Aryeh bandwagon keep throwing up this
> straw man that those of us who have tired of the useless back and
> forth are refusing to listen and uninterested in change, when
> *nothing* could be further from the truth.  ports@ is *not* a
> development list.  Its purpose is to provide news about ports,
> discuss problems with ports, get advice on porting and so forth.
> Or, to quote its charter, "Discussions concerning FreeBSD's “ports
> collection” (/usr/ports), ports infrastructure, and general ports
> coordination efforts. This is a technical mailing list for which
> strictly technical content is expected."

1. It specifically does not preclude such a discussion

2. If you where willing to have a rational debate vs. this chaos (some
of my "supporters" may have gone too far but it is only out of
reaction to the complete irrationality of some of those who don't like
the idea... btw I am not accusing anyone one of being against the
general concept of improving stuff just some people have really
"stupid" ideas {i.e. to me the seem like a recipe for disaster} of the
proper way to gather the information needed to do it right [not at all])
> Get that?  "Strictly technical".  "How do you feel about the
> present design" or "what don't you like about the present design"
> or "if you could change something about ports, what would it be"
> are *not* appropriate discussions for this list.

Name a specific aspect of an on topic reply (not debates about the
merits of the idea and/or the process of gathering info) that is not
specifically techinical.   By definition I think it is impossible not
to have anything but a purely tech discussion unless your one of these
narrow minded people who thinks that "2+2=4" is techinical but "what
is the result of adding two and two" is not technical.
> It's time to move this "discussion" to some place where those that
> *care* about coding and/or redesigning the ports system can
> participate and discuss code and return this list to its original
> purpose.  The only FreeBSD list that would be appropriate (if that
> - it's not really) would be arch, which is for architecture and
> design discussions.  This thread is a design discussion and does
> not belong here.  Please move it to a more appropriate place and
> leave this list alone.  Ask the FreeBSD maintainers to create a new
> list "ports-design@" if you like, but please stop the discussions
> here. They are inappropriate for this list.

As soon the rough design is worked out (which if people would stop
debating pointless stuff and stay on topic would take a week or so)
almost nothing will be discussed on any existing -XXX@ list, the
working group will use it's own list [not sure if it will be public or
private yet], except for occasional progress reports.. just like any
other project (and just like any other project there is a hopefully
brief [compared to the total effort] peroid of public discussion
concerning the general aspects and that is what is happening now on
- -ports@])
> And stop lying about the motivations of the many talented people
> who have asked, politely and otherwise, to stop.

I don't see how anyone ascribed any motive to anyone except for some
opponents of my approach saying I have alternative motives....
speaking of that I need to clarify one thing when I said my personal
reasons for doing this is to create a prototype for a commercial
system I am working on I didn't not mean the two projects will be
connected in any shape or form except for sharing some concepts....
the commercial version will be in Java for a OS radically diff then
Unix thus almost no code portability is possible.... also the FreeBSD
stuff will be 100% under the BSD license (note the commercial version
will have "open" sources also see my company's web site for details).... the reason for calling
the FreeBSD version a prototype is FreeBSD can always fall back on the
current system but for the commercial stuff due to it's nature there
is no fall back position.
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list