From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 7 22:31:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF0516A4CE; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:31:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from connectmail.carleton.ca (connectmail.carleton.ca [134.117.2.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4320C43D1F; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:31:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from adamw@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.1.141] ([134.117.145.25]) by connectmail.carleton.ca (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTPSA id <0I8D00525IJTEC@connectmail.carleton.ca>; Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:31:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:32:47 -0500 From: Adam Weinberger In-reply-to: <20041207220033.GB31640@xor.obsecurity.org> To: mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk Message-id: <41B62F8F.4050509@FreeBSD.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0RC1 (Windows/20041201) References: <20041207163843.GL9803@elch.haidundneu23.net> <20041207175217.3138143D46@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20041207220033.GB31640@xor.obsecurity.org> cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: stable@freebsd.org cc: Christoph Moench-Tegeder Subject: Re: Large port updates X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:31:07 -0000 On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +0000, mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk wrote: >It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why >not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the >way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there >either, its insanity). * With KDE, you get one big update every release. With GNOME, you can get new features, fixes, and improvements as soon as they become available. It's just a different design model. Each has its merits; each has its faults. * With KDE, you have one kdelibs port that takes about 80 minutes to build. With GNOME, you have about 20 ports that take about 4 minutes each to build. 6 of one, half dozen of another. That's purely metaphorical, of course: using ccache, I can build all GNOME meta- ports in about 6.5 hours; building the KDE meta-port takes about 9. * portupgrade(1) works perfectly if you run it regularly. If you introduce inconsistencies, portupgrade will fail no matter how you run it, or even if you build the updates from the command-line. * If you don't like the deployment structure of GNOME, talk to GNOME, not FreeBSD. You wouldn't complain to your TV manufacturer if you didn't like a movie you rented. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@magnesium.net || adamw@FreeBSD.org adamw@vectors.cx || adamw@gnome.org http://www.vectors.cx