Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:53:57 +0100 From: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Suggested improvements for ports Message-ID: <4787BB45.4080309@madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <20080111182015.GA1823@soaustin.net> References: <ED8842DFA28376008F3CA3A4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <790a9fff0801110834s532a7282lf63061ad2b73acf5@mail.gmail.com> <C5131A30CA17872122E4A5A3@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <4787AA13.1040403@madpilot.net> <20080111182015.GA1823@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Linimon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote: >> I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the >> system. > > That seems to have been the community consensus in the past. > > Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. Most of what I've > tried to put in there is "here's what we recommend as the preferred > practice". There's not much "you can't do this" -- most of that > deals with things that e.g. break INDEX or otherwise wreak havoc. Obviously some rules are needed to maintain the structure, I meant no attack to that. I simply wanted to say that I agree with the policy stated above. Putting rules like strict limiting numbers to items or the like would be against the ports logic. I think. -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4787BB45.4080309>