Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 14:32:13 -0600 From: Karl Denninger <karl@Denninger.Net> To: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Karl on ports (was Re: ports/15822: ...) Message-ID: <20000102143213.B25483@Denninger.Net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0001021327200.8839-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net>; from Steve Price on Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:34:44PM -0600 References: <20000102113646.A23255@Denninger.Net> <Pine.OSF.4.21.0001021327200.8839-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:34:44PM -0600, Steve Price wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote: > > [snip] > # I don't like the pkg/INSTALL. Hell, I don't like the PACKAGE format for > # this in the FIRST PLACE! Since you MUST have a compiler to run this anyway > # (Dan Lancini's code pretty much makes that mandatory) the entire concept of > # loading this from a package is rather silly. > [snip] > > There is nothing wrong with having a pkg/INSTALL. It serves a > very useful purpose if used properly. Sure - for those things that can be reasonably packaged. > Karl, I've been real amenable to your rants up to this point. > You are [after all] entitled to your opinion. I happen to like > the Ports Collection and its package format, and I'm a little > put off by baseless remarks like this. Please do tell what it > is you don't like about it. Be prepared to back your remarks > with hard cold facts and code, otherwise you are just blowing > smoke up our collective arses for the sake of getting high. I have a big beef with the concept of binary packages in certain instances, and this is one of them. > Do you have a big beef with FreeBSD (and their treehouses) and > because of that everything they do is wrong? Do you not > understand it and have the "it must be bad if I can't understand > it" attitude? Are you sold on another solution and anything not > exactly like it is inherently wrong? > > ??? > > -steve There is something VERY wrong with making packages for those things that SHOULD be compiled by the user. This is one of those kinds of things. There *ARE* pieces of software that were never designed to be binary packages, and for various reasons never WILL BE reasonable binary packages. HomeDaemon is one of them. I simply am not interested in supporting a binary package release of this software at any level, and won't do it. If it proliferates as a consequence of the Port then you're going to have a bunch of VERY UNSUPPORTED users, who will likely be unhappy. Note that I backed off the "no package" stuff that I had *originally* submitted (the first set of port files had NO_PACKAGE defined), but I still don't like it, and I will not entertain being forced into *full support* of a binary package. Given the choice between that full support and withdrawing this as a port, the port loses. Whether FreeBSD's "ports Gods" are willing to accept that at face value or not is your decision. It is, however, a position that *for the present* I am unwilling to back away from. If and when (and IF is the operative word here) I was to decide to write *my own* CM11a interface, and discard Dan's, or develop my own hardware (with its own interface) then my position on this might change, as a "packaged product" would be a rational thing to support. There is no indication that this will occur in anything that I'd consider a "contemporary" timeframe. This is, to some degree, a philosophical issue, but in the case of this package, which depends on an external piece of code supplied only in source by a third party, its also a *practical* limitation. Beyond the obvious (you have to be able and willing to use a compiler to get this thing going due to the way Dan makes *his* code available) I also have *zero* control over Dan's code (and its potential mutation over time). This just bit me HARD once (with a user who didn't understand what the heck was going on) and I strongly dislike encouraging those kinds of "surprises". -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for a plan to do exactly that! 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?20000102143213.B25483>