Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Not sure if it's necessary as I believe I already stated my position
clearly, but I'll do it here again just to be safe. I believe James'
comments above echo my position to a large extent, even though he
states his somewhat more firmly and stricter. Maybe in the long term
we can reach a middle point somewhere, but in a nutshell we agree
fully on what the project course will be.
The extra mile I'm willing to go and which I could negotiate for is
keeping support for other platforms in as long as there are active
interests maintaining it, just as there are now, and as long as they
work hard to keep the compatibility code from becoming the development
impacting roadblock James talks about above.
As long as those two points are met I don't see a problem in keeping
support for other platforms in, this is an open source project after
all and we do embrace these ideals!
I think it's important that the "base" of MacPorts remains Open Source,
and usable with such operating systems - whether it's Darwin or FreeBSD.
And I do believe that items such as License metadata (Trac Ticket #7493)
is much more important than petty issues like Noarch metadata (#12206) ?
Hope MacPorts on FreeBSD rocks as much as on Mac OS X, keep up the
good work Anders!
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work just as good on that
system.
(granted the number of ports is much smaller, but I mean the base and
RPM)
Can give it a whirl on (Pure)Darwin 8.0.1 as well, see how it goes
there ?
It would also have to use GNUstep of course, there is no Cocoa for
Darwin.
--anders
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
