On Mar 23, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 22, 2009, at 13:19, Darren Weber wrote:
On balance, I'm both impressed and disappointed with the
complexity of the macports system to date. For example,
dependency resolution needs a lot of work during upgrades, binary
distributions are a great idea in the making (perhaps forever in
the making), and the whole issue of dependency on variants is a
massive conference debate. I've certainly come across these
issues and tried to submit reasonable trac suggestions for
enhancements, etc. on a couple of ports. My main issue seems to
be in getting a few ports with a lot of dependencies to cooperate,
esp. with regard to variants (eg, Qt, Postgresql, MySQL, VTK,
etc.). I do think that package maintainers should think very
carefully about their default variants and try to provide as many
options as possible - that seems to be the way with Debian packages.
Mac OS X is not Debian. The Mac way is to provide not as many
options as possible, but as few options as possible. Meet the needs
of most of the users with the default setup, and provide a few
options for everyone else.
As a consumer, I do not enjoy having to select amongst 37 different
types of toothpaste at the grocery store. More choices is not
always better.
http://www.cafeaulait.org/images/remotes.png
Hello,
The Mac way is to provide plug and play which includes software as
well as hardware.
Frank J. R. Hanstick
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
