On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:14:56AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Well boo hoo! If you're smart enough to be useful in testing new > versions, you're smart enough to modify the port yourself, or build > the software without the port.
Yes, I guess that's true. > Sorry to be so flippant, but this whole line of reasoning is absurd. A No problem, but I didn't mean it as hard as you might have read it, maybe my English is not clear enough sometimes: I wanted to express that I like the fact that FreeBSD ports are so close to the upstream versions. Other systems tend to deliver heavily patched and outdated versions. I certainly don't think that every untested bleeding edge software should go into ports, but normally an official samba-release fixes more problems than introducing new ones. > port maintainer has to take the best interests of the majority of the > userbase into account, not cater to edge cases, especially when the > edge cases ought to be able to get their own hands dirty. Yes, of course. > I also think it's useful to keep in mind that we are giving you the > bits for free, and there is nothing stopping you from doing whatever > you want to do with them. I know. I'm sorry if you got the impression I wouldn't appreciate your work. I guess my English is just too clumsy to be precise enough sometimes. Uwe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
