Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:04:19 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <200410151404.i9FE4Jrc006244@peedub.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <200410151419.44415.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Nottebrock writes: > This is exactly why we need more fine-grained (slave-)-ports that translate > features into binary packages which can be added and removed easily. If a > user asks "How can I get this or that feature in $package" and the answer is > "you need install the ports-collection, set some option and then recompile > the port" it means that the port is flawed and a slave-port which translates > the feature into a binary package is needed. > You're joking, right? I certainly am not prepared or willing to make a slave port for every twinkie option in the ports which I maintain! Not to mention the explosion in the number of files in the ports tree. --- Gary Jennejohn / garyj[at]jennejohn.org gj[at]freebsd.org garyj[at]denx.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410151404.i9FE4Jrc006244>