From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 13 07:30:14 2014
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id EEF5ABCC; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:30:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:30:14 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: marino@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>
References: <53ea6d76.6eb9.5599e7c9@svn.freebsd.org>
 <53EA6EBB.2010802@marino.st>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53EA6EBB.2010802@marino.st>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org,
 ports-committers@freebsd.org, Cy Schubert <cy@FreeBSD.org>
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head
 <svn-ports-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:30:15 -0000

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