On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > > > > > Having a poor port of an obscure > > > piece of software is better, than no port at all. > > > > A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first > > place). > > Wrong. > A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be marked Broken. Still > a lot less work to polish than writing a port from scratch. Still a > damn sight more use to non programmers than no port. Maybe it might > just need a bit more work to speify more depends, but still be working > anyway.
It occurs to me there are people who would call KDE4 a "poor" port. I suspect deleting that would not go over well. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpdi6O07OpJt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
