Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:24:35 +0200 From: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> To: Michal Varga <varga.michal@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated? Message-ID: <201107261324.35657.talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> In-Reply-To: <1311676715.1799.27.camel@xenon> References: <20110726092756.GA90978@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <1311676715.1799.27.camel@xenon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 12:38:35, vous avez =C3=A9crit : > Sure, why not kill one of the biggest strengths FreeBSD is known for > while we're at it... Or most obvious weakness ... The biggest strength was a good kernel, better= =20 than Linux, but this was years ago. >=20 > Two questions: >=20 > Who will provide the infrastructure to build me all of my packages the > day/hour/moment moment I need them and constantly build me the i386, > amd64, athlon-tbird optimized, k8-sse3 optimized, -O2 and -O3 optimized, > intel-core optimized, and intel-p3 optimized batches for all of my > machines? >=20 > Who will constantly build and maintain my custom set of binary packages > and all their dependencies built with the exact specific OPTIONS that I > need and without the components that I don't want? This stuff you are mentioning is the precise reason why people have problem= s=20 with the ports system. By the way, all your optimisations have next to zero= =20 impact on performance, and introduce a sizable probability of bugs. And the components you don't want use an infinitesimal part of your hard disk a= nd=20 nothing in your memory. At the end of the day this sort of feature buys no= =20 benefit at all and introduces an infinite combinatoric complexity for people wanting to test the ports system.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201107261324.35657.talon>