Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:07:14 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: Hrant Dadivanyan <hrant@dadivanyan.net> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <56B9C862.2000105@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <E1aT5uj-000LWW-Bu@pandora.amnic.net> References: <E1aT5uj-000LWW-Bu@pandora.amnic.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/9/2016 11:52 AM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: > It's fine that there is such an excellent tool as synth, but in server > environment, when only a few ports are installed, having a management port > with 17 dependencies is not reasonable. Rather that parroting this phrase, I would like to see some technical reasoning about this dependency criticism. Would you be willing to provide that? What I would like to see you address is: 1) As was just stated earler this morning, having synth installed is 2 packages: Synth itself and ncurses. These "17 dependences" are build requirements and not installed. So what is "unreasonable" about that? 2) If 17 dependencies are such a concern, why would you not install it via official freebsd packages? 3) If there is a corporate policy to build everything from source, what would be the issue to use an officially packaged Synth to build Synth (along with the other packages) so that the locally built Synth could replace the downloaded version? As established earlier both by text and the recently posted architecture drawing, Synth is not in the critical path and removing it has no adverse affects on a system so the whole, "I'll be left in a bad state argument has been debunked" This is not a rhetorical set of questions, I would very much like to see how you answer these, given your opinion on this is unreasonable. I would like to understand how this is a problem and why there are no ways to address it. thank you, John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56B9C862.2000105>