On 31 October 2016 at 16:35, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Oct 31, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> One of the suggestions in this thread was to use the "hub" wrapper around >> git. Based on the fact that their homepage only mentions how to install hub >> with Homebrew, and that they have twice refused  to acknowledge on their >> web page that hub can also be installed with MacPorts, I am uncomfortable >> referring users to their web page, and I suggest that we do not mention >> "hub" in our page. > > while that's super-silly of the 'hub' author, I don't think we need to > retaliate by not using or recommending the software if it's useful.
I can imagine a newbie trying to navigate to the page and thinking that installation of Homebrew is necessary for making that software work, just to screw up the rest of MacPorts. An additional problem might be that whenever users have a problem with the software and file a bug report, they might get an equally annoying answer saying "Install Homebrew, I don't support MP". I had a problem with one particular project in the past that a typical answer to any bug report I filed was "stop using MacPorts, it's obviously broken" when in 90% of the cases it was their bug that just showed up when using certain newer dependencies or a particular set of configure flags they never tested. I would understand not accepting a complex patch for the sake of supporting some legacy system, but not such a strong attitude against adding one line to the documentation. I'm with Ryan in this case. We don't prevent anyone from using this software if they choose to, I just don't see the point of advertising software whose maintainer decided to go against MP. Disclaimer: I have no clue how useful the software is, I've never tested it myself. Mojca _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev