Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:20:56 +0200 From: Lapo Luchini <lapo@lapo.it> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>, Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org>, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org>, Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: XPI infrastructure needs some love Message-ID: <4C869EA8.4020002@lapo.it> In-Reply-To: <4C868650.7090504@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C866AB3.4030802@lapo.it> <4C868650.7090504@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C869EA8.4020002>