> On Sep 9, 2016, at 4:17 AM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a side-thought: it shouldn't be particularly difficult to implement a > "base" feature which defines a set of PortGroups to be included by default by > every port, if such a thing doesn't already exist.
As Josh has said previously, this is called "base". > I know there's been talk about making at least parts of "base" updateable as > a port; this could be an easy alternative. If our release process is too cumbersome and infrequent, we should change that. I don't see reason to divide base's functionality more than it already is. And I would definitely not want any security-related functionality to be implemented in a portgroup, which is immediately pushed to all users. vq Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
