On May 21, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
On May 21, 2009, at 7:39 AM, David Osguthorpe wrote:
I really get concerned when I see statements like this - so much
that I start
thinking maybe forking macports to eg. linuxports is needed - or
maybe back
to darwinports
Which would gain you ... ?
We've had this debate before, and it always seems to boil down to
"Hey, let's rip the non-MacOSX stuff out. We're MacPorts, not
*Ports!" "No no, I had some Linux support working last year, even
though it hasn't been maintained at all and only 10 ports actually
work with it!" and then everyone tries to placate the person who put
in that well-intentioned, but ultimately doomed (to rot) support by
simply dropping the subject until the next time it comes up.
The fact remains pretty clear that the Linux folks and all the *BSDs
have their own systems for managing software, and no more than a
tiny fraction of their user base will ever use ours (the Gentoo BSD
folks come to mind as another good example of that principle in
action). Without users in any quantity, there is very little
attention actually paid to the code in question and without
attention, it becomes little more than the personal hobby of the few
people who actually use that Linux/BSD/Solaris support code and
MacPorts becomes an amalgam of common-good code and personal, pet
projects. Not my idea of a good time.
For the record this is what would concern me:
Why should you care that some people use powerpc architectures
I have expense high end work stations and servers that are powerpc.
They should last a long long time.
I would hope that we wouldn't drop powerpc support unless it was
seriously holding the user base back.
//Brad
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
