On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 08:17:12PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Maybe what the "too many packages" folks need to do is write some code > to hide that it's so many packages. > > :) > > I think the rule of two feet should be applied here. > > What we have is people that have worked quite hard to bring us something > that we can easily work with, and on the other hand some folks that want > something they consider even better. Personally I can't see how having > the system less granular is better, since having it MORE granular is > actually harder work. > > Can someone on the "too many packages" campaign here explain to me how > having too fine a granularity stops you from making macro packages > containing packages? > > Because honestly I can't see how having granularity hurts at all when if > someone wanted to make it less granular all they would have to do is > make some meta-packages.
Because this is imposible (or very hard) to implement. After last update (realy update) I have partyaly updated system -- some packages updated, some -- not (I am expect all packages must be updated). Imposible to combine 800 packages to less meta-package and distinct improper partial update from proper. And how I am can paste this list of packages? _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
