Re: CVS removal from the base


On 12/13/11 7:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Hi,
> Reference:
>> From:		Doug Barton<dougb@FreeBSD.org>
>> Date:		Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:02 -0800
>> Message-id:	<4EE7C39E.6040403@FreeBSD.org>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 12/11/2011 06:14, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>>> Doug Barton wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2011 04:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>>>> I think you're missing the point a little.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is, you have to keep in mind how comfortable people feel
>>>>> about things, and progress sometimes makes people uncomfortable. I
>>>>> think you should leave these changes bake for a while and let people
>>>>> get comfortable with the changing status quo.
>>>> The fact that we have so many people who are radically change-averse, no
>>>> matter how rational the change; is a bug, not a feature.
>>>>
>>>> This particular bug is complicated dramatically by the fact that the
>>>> majority view seems to lean heavily towards "If I use it, it must be the
>>>> default and/or in the base" rather than seeing ports as part of the
>>>> overall operating SYSTEM.
>>> BSD is more conservative. More value given to stability of availability
>>> of interfaces&  tools etc,
>> Having things in ports doesn't make them less available. :)
> It didn't used to.  It risks it now, since in last months, some
> ports/ have been targeted by a few rogue commiters purging, who
> want to toss ports out from one release to another without warning
> of a DEPRECATED= in previous release Makefiles.
>
which brings up teh possibility of 1st class ports.. which are kept 
more  as part of the system..
(sorry for sounding like a broken  record..)

>

_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"