From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 7 20:47:47 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0684106578C for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:47:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lapo@lapo.it) Received: from mail.lapo.it (motoko-mki.lapo.it [88.198.0.105]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098618FC1D for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:47:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27163 invoked by uid 89); 7 Sep 2010 20:21:23 -0000 Received: from host71-40-static.74-81-b.business.telecomitalia.it (HELO ?10.0.0.1?) (lapo@lapo.it@81.74.40.71) by 0 with ESMTPA; 7 Sep 2010 20:21:23 -0000 Message-ID: <4C869EA8.4020002@lapo.it> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:20:56 +0200 From: Lapo Luchini User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 SeaMonkey/2.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4C866AB3.4030802@lapo.it> <4C868650.7090504@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C868650.7090504@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 OpenPGP: id=C8F252FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Stanislav Sedov , Andrew Pantyukhin , Martin Wilke Subject: Re: XPI infrastructure needs some love X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:47:47 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > This might be a good time to re-evaluate how we handle those ports in > the first place. How many of them involve actual C or C++ code that > needs to be compiled to run, vs. simply re-packaging javascript bits? Only enigmail comes to my mind. (but it is even a bit more evil, it requires the original sources and can't be directly installed) > For those that we are simply > repackaging, what's the value in doing that, vs. simply allowing > users to download them from mozilla's site? Well, in vastly multi-user places there might of course be good reasons to have a single centralized package instead of one-for-each-user-account, but OTOH... places like that are not much more used in this a-few-PCs-per-household world we currently live in. Still, I feel that as a *somewhat cleaner* choice and go to the extent of creating a port for every extension I do use (on my single-user machines), but I'm not quite sure I'd be able to justify that with real arguments other than a warm fuzzy feeling. ;) -- Lapo Luchini - http://lapo.it/ "If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." (Weinberg's Second Law)