Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:40:14 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option Message-ID: <20150112174014.GF44537@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <9132c8812ccd3906dd487830a912d00c@ultimatedns.net> References: <CAG=rPVcTsT2izsmdGMJtD6RgRJ3CwfZg1vN6nC%2BvRMYEQ8iPhA@mail.gmail.com> <20150112122652.GA9472@lonesome.com> <54B3BE2C.6030207@sorbs.net> <20150112123241.GB9472@lonesome.com> <54B3C28C.10605@sorbs.net> <20150112130804.GD44537@home.opsec.eu> <CA%2BE3k92LJPRNA-pj_5EkheMogWitpCfgaUi==KsfAz=gZMu5jw@mail.gmail.com> <fe6efb4ec026964fb08d50ada48957a5@ultimatedns.net> <CA%2BE3k92wtj_584PvgjLmHXCyYPLX9%2B95SkC8fdfHK%2BZR0sdybg@mail.gmail.com> <9132c8812ccd3906dd487830a912d00c@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > Honestly; why did pkg(8) have to be *required*? Because those that are really active in maintaining it had the choice of either - keeping the old system running, and breaking down on the burden of doing so or - migrating to the pkgng setup which allows to cope with the rate of change in the non-freebsd-base software world It's an economics question: Those players in the open-source OS market that have the resources to keep going will stay afloat. FreeBSD had the choice to loose more active maintainers trying to keep the old state or attract new ones with the new state. It's a gamble, and if enough people like the old style more, they probably have to fork. I've used both styles for a while and yes, the switchover takes time and patience, but it's not the end-of-the-world. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 5 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150112174014.GF44537>