Roland Smith <rsm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:09:34PM +0100, Michel Talon wrote: > > > occur, a port maintainer should only include the *strict minimum* > > dependencies necessary to make the port work, it is not his job to include > > the whole kitchen sink of dependencies that could be useful in some cases. > > So you would advocate to set all options to off be default? Why not submit a > PR to that effect?
_I_ would suggest that it might make good sense to have as many as _three_ choices of binary installations for ports with 'lots' (FSVO 'lots' :) of dependencies -- a 'bare minimums' working version, a 'typical' version, and an 'including the kitchen sink' version. Logic: give the -user- the choice -- DON'T "make it for him" > > And who is to say what is "appropriate", other than the respective maintainers > of the port in question? In my opinion, packages are a dead-end street. They > might be convenient but they are also "one size fits all". Which as your > message demonstrates is not the case. :-) Three sizes should give a better fit for a lot of people, see above. <grin> _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
