Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 09:16:21 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: blt2.1 Message-ID: <26687.847646181@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Nov 1996 10:44:47 EST." <Pine.OSF.3.95.961110103315.17739A-100000@fiber.eng.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yeah, I understand. You have a choice of either limiting the port, or the > package. It would be nice to a choice for package users, but I just don't > see it being all that practical. My personal choice is to limit the > capabilities of the package users, because that at least serves the least > common denominator, and I think that those who bother to do their own > compiling deserve more functionality. The least or most common denomimator? :-) FWIW, it was always my intention to make the port a "superset" of the package, so the package user got a canned "this is what we think you'll like" version and the port user had more flexibility, if such flexibility was available at all. In the second generation, the package should have different "flavors" to it, which you can examine or select from the adding tool. If you ask for the developer flavor, it gives you that copy of its insides. If you ask for the stupid user flavor, it makes the appropriate changes. The "flavor" scheme is also how it'll be possible to have one package with FreeBSD, NetBSD and Linux binaries in it, each doing the right thing automagically when unpacked on one of those platforms. But I get somewhat ahead of myself here.. :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?26687.847646181>