Re: The ports-system and userland in general.

[Weapon of Mass Deduction <blacklist@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Raphael Marmier wrote:
> walt wrote:
>
> > If DFly becomes the de facto standard BSD system (which I truly believe
> > will happen in three to five years) it will attract enough talented ports
> > maintainers to support any ports system that DFly may elect to support.
> >
> > Until that day comes, I vote for keeping the FreeBSD ports system.
>
>
> Add my vote to this.
> In the past years quite a few packaging system came up, often with the 
> goal of much improving what was before. Despite these efforts, we are 
> still at the point that the ports collection is the "less worst" we 
> have. And it is one of the older, that should make us sober (and bow to 
> jkh) ...
>
> We will definitly not find the magic solution overnight. Therefore we 
> should run two efforts in parallel.
>
> - One that defines features we must/should have in an ideal system, and 
> try to put it together, without pressure.
> - Another one which puts an order of priority on these desired features, 
> and tries to add them incrementaly to the current port collection.
>
> Advantages:
> - This way, new features are put to test before we end up with a 
> complete, elegant system which unfortunatly again is out of touch with 
> reality in such subtle ways that it is unusable or at best improves 
> nothing.
> - We cannot determine which approach will bring the new package system 
> of our dreams, so let's try both at once.
>
> Note that this doesn't not prevent us from fundamentaly altering the 
> port's collection's mechanisms, as long as the ports' tree stays 
> compatible or convertable by some tool on update. Maybe we should 
> dissecate the ports collection, and refactor it, maybe using something 
> cleaner than make/Makefiles, but I digress... ;)
>
> my two cents
>
> Raphael


Indeed.

--
Greetings,
WMD (tfa . x @ inter . nl . net)