Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 21:36:39 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> Cc: Brett Taylor <brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu>, Adam Turoff <aturoff@isinet.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Ports Message-ID: <4.1.19990308213030.03ea5c80@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.990303122851.22508A-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes .com> References: <4.1.19990302163944.00a1e620@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:32 PM 3/3/99 -0500, Bill Fumerola wrote: >If the users aren't updating their sources/ports, then the new (lack of) >support will not alienate them. They're often adding the port for the first time. Suddenly, they want a Web server, a new editor, a network utility. They get an old one with security holes. Not good. I want to be able to tell my system, "I want the latest version of Program X for the version of the operating system I'm currently running. Make it so." There's no reason why the ports collection can't resolve the dependencies and do that. >Either > Users want new/updated ports, and they keep their source current. Non sequitur. I don't want to have a "versionless" or unstable version of the OS on the machine just to get a recent version of a ported app. As it is, I often forego the ports collection altogether and compile the app myself. This can cause problems because I won't be able to take care of any necessary adaptations that would be made in a port. If someone out there is taking the time to do builds, I should be able to use them. Otherwise, the port maintainer's time and effort are not being used effectively to bring the most benefit to users. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990308213030.03ea5c80>