On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 06:29:15PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > "Kirill Bychkov" <ki...@linklevel.net> writes: > > The port looks good but I wonder, do we really need a port for a single > > stand-alone script without any dependencies? Am I right that it's even not > > an > > RDEP for any other port? > > I understand your concern, I had the same in mind when reviewing. The > only rationale I see is that it is easier to manage "packages" than > "packages plus a set of things to download and install out of band". > But, as far as I'm concerned, I would totally understand objections to > add such a simple port.
Indeed, Jeremie's rationale is my own: for selfish reasons, I like being able to use the package system to install what I need, with the reassurance that versioning and regression testing are handled by that same system. In the case of this particular port, having tests that run through the ports system is particularly convenient, and I'd argue that having facilities like that consistently available across the whole ports system are what make ports useful. I wouldn't fight to have this port committed, but again, I do think it's a useful addition. Thanks, Taylor
