Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:21:42 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD-Ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: blt2.1 Message-ID: <18140.847822902@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:52:09 EST." <Pine.OSF.3.95.961111173740.25536A-100000@maryann.eng.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Counter these arguments, and I promise not to raise any more of them (I'm > not really into religious wars). I think I've got answers to all of them > in the paradigm of making packages depend on options, the only down side > to that is a much greater multiplicity of packages needed for ports that > have multiple options. It's difficult to really argue vapor-vs-vapor since there are no concrete examples to point to, so I'll tell ya what. I'll keep working on a prototype and when I'm ready to release it, we can critique its shortcomings. Right now, this is about as meaningful as discussing how well the Boston Red Sox might do if they ever played a pennant game again. :-) In the meantime, do whatever you have to do to make the ports collection more usable in the short term. If I come along with a solution which can credibly replace it, we can debate the finer points at that time. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18140.847822902>