Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:32:47 -0500 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> To: mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk Cc: Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net> Subject: Re: Large port updates Message-ID: <41B62F8F.4050509@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20041207220033.GB31640@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20041207163843.GL9803@elch.haidundneu23.net> <20041207175217.3138143D46@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20041207220033.GB31640@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41B62F8F.4050509>