On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:03:01PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
| >And what/who needs this?
|
| Sorry, but, is that question relevant? I mean, shoudn't the ports tree
| have all the programs it can? :S
I don't think that's the goal of the OpenBSD portstree. The portstree
(or better, packaging system) should be an easy to use interface to
add functionality to OpenBSD that is missing from the base
installation. If GNU Sed doesn't add anything that the default sed(1)
is missing (I don't know, I think this is what Peter is asking), why
should it be added to the tree ?
I don't speak for the developers, but I doubt it is their goal to
"have all the programs it can" in the portstree. I think there are
other UNIX-like OS'es out there that try to do achieve this. I will
not comment on the usefulness of such goals other than to say that I
kinda like OpenBSD for the way it deals with this sort of thing.
Again, this is not aimed specifically at gsed but at the broad
generalisation that the porstree should contain all the programs it
can.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
