Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:30:14 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Cy Schubert <cy@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r364739 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/syslog-ng-devel sysutils/syslog-ng-devel/files Message-ID: <20140813073014.GA16368@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <53EA6EBB.2010802@marino.st> References: <53ea6d76.6eb9.5599e7c9@svn.freebsd.org> <53EA6EBB.2010802@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:44:59PM +0200, John Marino wrote: > On 8/12/2014 21:39, Cy Schubert wrote: > > New Revision: 364739 > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/364739 > > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r364739/ > > > > Log: > > Reintroduce syslog-ng-devel for 3.6.0alpha2. > > Do Ports really need alpha quality -devel ports in the collection? > > If it were up to me I'd purge 90% of our -devel ports. I tried to start > a conversation about a policy for these with portmgr, but as usual, only > one person responded. I'd still like to have that conversation though. > This -devel port trend is disturbing. Totally seconded. I don't recall I had to use any -devel port, with the only exception of fvwm2 for a while. Giving users gratuitous choices is actually insulting if you think of it. If something really warrants two (or more) ports of the same software coexist, it must be clearly explained in pkg-descr for both ports. Otherwise we end up like we do now with plethora of -devel ports, or three (sic!) net/isc-dhcp4*-server ports and nothing answering a simple question of "which one do I need?". I'll leave this famous rant here for those who's still not getting it: http://linuxhaters.blogspot.ru/2008/07/fallacy-of-choice.html ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140813073014.GA16368>