Compatability with FreeBSD Ports
joerg at britannica.bec.de
Mon Aug 15 14:03:57 PDT 2005
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 04:51:02PM -0000, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> joerg wrote @ Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:10:19 +0200:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:39:59AM -0000, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> > > - no portupgrade
> > I stated before that I don't agree with this FOR TECHNICAL REASON.
> > portupgrade is a hack, it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. See
> > other comments for examples.
> But you have no solution. portupgrade works fine here.
> It is a mature tool and is up to the task.
LOL. It's mature because it works for some cases but randomly fails?
That's why it does quality as hack and nothing more. But the complete
ignorance of problems is introduced by "minor" updates is too common.
> > > - deinstalls before compiling
> > That's the update target, which makes perfect sense to allow a *clean*,
> > *reproducable* build. Use pkg_comp if you don't like it.
> I don't care. It's not what i want.
Well, don't complain about it then. Use ports. It seems we have
different requirements for what is considered mature vs. working. I
never forced you or anyone else to use pkgsrc. That's what you've been
implaying so far, but which is literally not true. I said I won't work
on dfports anymore, because I consider it wasted time. The same holds
true for asmodai. *I* have choosen pkgsrc because it is in *my* opinion
better thought out and has a preference for correctness over hacks which
might or might not work. Frankly, I don't care whether you agree or not.
Even if most other people working on third party support would prefer
dfports, I'd still invest my time in pkgsrc. Rehashing the same
arguments over and over doesn't change them, so I'll stop increasing the
entropy of the universe here.
More information about the Users