From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Jun 3 19:10:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA10557 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA10552 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cola59.scsn.net ([206.25.247.59]) by mail.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-32322U5000L100S10000) with ESMTP id AAA220; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:02:49 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by cola59.scsn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA00975; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19970603220937.02810@scsn.net> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:09:37 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" To: Satoshi Asami Cc: dmaddox@scsn.net, bde@zeta.org.au, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ports 'make install' and mtree Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net References: <19970603194623.59411@scsn.net> <199706040157.SAA04186@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.74 In-Reply-To: <199706040157.SAA04186@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>; from Satoshi Asami on Tue, Jun 03, 1997 at 06:57:27PM -0700 Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 03, 1997 at 06:57:27PM -0700, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * Blech. Yet another good reason not to use packages. I never use packages anyway, > * since I run -current, and -current has a tendency to break 'em and require a > * recompile anyway :-) > > I'm so glad to hear that my effort to constantly rebuild packages is > appreciated. (Maybe you can report what is broken so we can > investigate/fix it, rather than make snide remarks like this? :<) > > Satoshi Sorry, I wasn't trying to deride the efforts you make in keeping working packages available... It's simply a fact that changes in -current often break installed packages, and I prefer just recompiling source I already have in distfiles over downloading Yet Another Package That May Be Broken Again Tomorrow. No matter how diligent you are in rebuilding the available packages, you cannot respond to the breakage of a package I use faster than I can :-) I apologize if my previous message sounded like an indictment of the package system that exists; it wasn't. It was simply a statement that IMVHO, packages are more trouble than they are worth for -current users. FWIW, I think you do a great job. Thanks.