Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:31:34 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andrew <andrew@ugh.net.au>, cy@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/37290: New port: tool for setting the title of xterms Message-ID: <20020421163133.C56612@k7.mavetju.org> In-Reply-To: <20020420213634.K15997-100000@master.gorean.org>; from DougB@FreeBSD.org on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:39:51PM -0700 References: <20020421133225.A30679-100000@starbug.ugh.net.au> <20020420213634.K15997-100000@master.gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:39:51PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > There are a number that could be. I don't really mind if it gets > > commited or not but I thought it should be the end users choice as to > > what they install or if they wirte scripts to do what they need. > > The question isn't what we allow the users to use (of course), > it's about what we support in the ports tree. Given that (as far as I > know) csh-derived shells can also do this without help, and this > functionality is already provided by another program in ports, this port > is redundant, and probably shouldn't be included. This argument shows that there is confusion what the ports collection is for. As far as I see it (feel free to discuss this) The ports collection-skeleton (the directory structure, the makefiles), that's maintained by the FreeBSD team. But the actual ports itself, they're maintained by their maintainers. Sometimes the persons who made them, sometimes the persons who use them and who want to give something back to the FreeBSD community. There are ports which add something new to the operating system (a webserver, a newsserver), there are ports which improve the current utilities on the operating system (shells, utilities, editors) and there are ports which replace things in the opearting system (MTAs, X-servers, gcc). Besides that, there are multiple versions of the same ports (with and without IPv6, newer versions of a programming language or toolkit) and there are multiple ports of the same functionality (webservers, webbrowsers, instant messagers). Refusing a port because there is something with the same functionality is not done, towards the person who put effort in it to port it (I remember my first port) and towards the future (if the port currently available is removed from the distribution point and the author isn't reachable anymore). So yeah, if it was up to me then all the ports submitted would be accepted, regardless of their functionality. The only reason not to accept a port is because on technical grounds (isn't fetchable, doesn't compile), not on functionality. Just my 2 cents, Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.MavEtJu.org edwin@mavetju.org | Interested in MUDs? Visit Fatal Dimensions: bash$ :(){ :|:&};: | http://www.FatalDimensions.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020421163133.C56612>