At 5:23 PM -0800 2/6/02, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a
>version of gcc that is officially supported and that also
>includes *all* of the standard platforms that come as part of
>the gcc release.

This line of reasoning does not scale up well.

It is plain that people will want to install 'ruby', because ruby is
necessary for the VERY USEFUL port known as 'portupgrade'.  People
will also want to install autoconf and automake.  I have about seventy
ports installed, all of which I think are very useful and very nice to
have.  Most of them are ports that many other people will also want to
install.  All of them are ports I would use more often than gjc, and
I am someone who *likes* working with computer languages.

However, "many people" wanting a particular port does not justify
moving it into the base system.  You talk as if the ports collection
is only for things that nobody wants.  This is an odd view of ports.
You talk as if ports are not "officially supported".  It is true
that some of them are orphans, but other ports are supported just as
well and just as fervently as anything in the base system.

I think David is 100% right in his position.  That position is that
unless there is some major reason that gjc *must* be in the base
system, then it can survive quite well as a port.  I have read through
your messages, and I have seen no convincing reason why gjc *must*
be in the base system.  Personally, I see no reason at all.

This is not meant as an insult against gjc.  It's simply a matter of
what does and does not belong in the base system.

Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer           or  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to