On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there either, its insanity).
* With KDE, you get one big update every release. With GNOME, you can get new features, fixes, and improvements as soon as they become available. It's just a different design model. Each has its merits; each has its faults.
* With KDE, you have one kdelibs port that takes about 80 minutes to build. With GNOME, you have about 20 ports that take about 4 minutes each to build. 6 of one, half dozen of another. That's purely metaphorical, of course: using ccache, I can build all GNOME meta- ports in about 6.5 hours; building the KDE meta-port takes about 9.
* portupgrade(1) works perfectly if you run it regularly. If you introduce inconsistencies, portupgrade will fail no matter how you run it, or even if you build the updates from the command-line.
* If you don't like the deployment structure of GNOME, talk to GNOME, not FreeBSD. You wouldn't complain to your TV manufacturer if you didn't like a movie you rented.
# Adam
-- Adam Weinberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vectors.cx _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
