On 9/13/11 4:52 PM, Chris Rees wrote:
> I'm rather tired of being called to defend myself,
I see no reason why you should find it necessary. Bravo for the work
you've done.
> I've plenty of better things to be doing.
>
Agreed. Julian, amongst others this past few weeks, have successfully
made
On 13 Sep 2011 20:57, "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Reference:
> > From: Chris Rees
> > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:01 +0100
> > Message-id:
>
> Chris Rees wrote:
> > On 13 September 2011 18:54, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Reference:
> > >> From: Chr
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Chris Rees
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:01 +0100
> Message-id:
>
Chris Rees wrote:
> On 13 September 2011 18:54, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Reference:
> >> From: Chris Rees
> >> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100
> >> M
Chris Rees wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Matthias Andree wrote:
> >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
> >> >> the first place).
> >> >
> >> > Bullshit!
> >>
> >> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotio
On 13 September 2011 18:54, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Hi,
> Reference:
>> From: Chris Rees
>> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100
>> Message-id:
>>
>
> Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>> > Matthias Andree wrote:
>> >> >> An obscure p
Hi,
Reference:
> From: Chris Rees
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100
> Message-id:
>
Chris Rees wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Matthias Andree wrote:
> >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
> >>
On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Matthias Andree wrote:
>> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
>> >> the first place).
>> >
>> > Bullshit!
>>
>> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we
>> should stop it.
>
> No.
Matthias Andree wrote:
> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
> >> the first place).
> >
> > Bullshit!
>
> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we
> should stop it.
No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revo
>> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
>> the first place).
>
> Bullshit!
I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we
should stop it.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.free
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
>
> > Having a poor port of an obscure
> > piece of software is better, than no port at all.
>
> A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first
> place).
Highly deb
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Matthias Andree wrote:
> > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
> >
> > > Having a poor port of an obscure
> > > piece of software is better, than no port at all.
> >
> > A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the t
Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
>
> > Having a poor port of an obscure
> > piece of software is better, than no port at all.
>
> A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first
> place).
Wrong.
A `poor' port is is still a port else it woul
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
>
> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
> the first place).
Wait -- what? Why should something not be ported if it's not popular?
--
Chad Perrin [ ori
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.:
> Having a poor port of an obscure
> piece of software is better, than no port at all.
A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first
place).
An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in
the first place).
"Mikhail T." wrote:
>Having to deal with RedHat's yum at work, I got to say, I'd rather be
>building from source, than installing from "consistent packages", that
>somebody else built *to their* tastes.
Fedora crap is a very bad example. The canonical example of a binary
distribution which *works
On 08.09.2011 04:42, Greg Byshenk wrote:
For many people, what "THERE IS A PORT OF IT" actually -means- is
that the user can go to ports and install a -working- version of
the software, not merley that there is something called 'IT'
somewhere in the ports tree that may or may not work.
Some por
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:15:04PM -0400, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
> >Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature.
> >However, it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you
> >consider the number of those ports that
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature. However,
it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you consider the
number of those ports that are either actually or effectively unmaintained.
Support? What suppor
18 matches
Mail list logo
