On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:17:12PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code
> to hide that it's so many packages.
> I think the rule of two feet should be applied here.
> What we have is people that have worked quite hard to bring us something
> that we can easily work with, and on the other hand some folks that want
> something they consider even better. Personally I can't see how having
> the system less granular is better, since having it MORE granular is
> actually harder work.
> Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how
> having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages
> containing packages?
> Because honestly I can't see how having granularity hurts at all when if
> someone wanted to make it less granular all they would have to do is
> make some meta-packages.
Because this is imposible (or very hard) to implement.
After last update (realy update) I have partyaly updated system --
some packages updated, some -- not (I am expect all packages must be
updated). Imposible to combine 800 packages to less meta-package and
distinct improper partial update from proper.
And how I am can paste this list of packages?
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"