Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:53:46PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:08:07PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > The single one -CURRENT vs. -STABLE difference that causes many easy to
> > > fix breakages is really gcc.
> > ...
> > > and not ever
Long, Scott wrote:
All I'm asking is that ports maintainers make
an effort to maintain their ports. Will's accertation that it's an
all or nothing issue is certainly not productive, and neither is the
'us versus them' inuendo here.
The single one -CURRENT vs. -STABLE difference that causes many
Terry Lambert wrote:
Kent Stewart wrote:
In 40 years of using computers, nothing has changed. The system's
people are still primadona's and do nothing wrong.
Get used to it :). Unfortunately!! People don't install OSes because
of the OS as much as the codes they can run on it. The importance
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:37:22PM -0400, Long, Scott wrote:
> No, the systems people do do stuff wrong. It's been plainly pointed
> out many times recently when someone does something wrong. However,
> what's wrong with a little cooperation? If a port breaks because of
> a system change, the ma
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:37:02AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> The ports collection is one of the crown jewels of FreeBSD.
> Unfortunately, even as more ports committers are added, more and
> more ports break or become harder to build. On top of that,
> pkg_add has become close to worthless now th
Will Andrews wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:37:02AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
The ports collection is one of the crown jewels of FreeBSD.
Unfortunately, even as more ports committers are added, more and
more ports break or become harder to build. On top of that,
pkg_add has become close to
"Long, Scott" wrote:
> Yes, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was picking on the ports committers.
> Changes due to standards compliance, architecture changes, etc, all
> wreak havoc on ports, and hopefully the pace of that will slow down.
> Unfortunately, the direction of FreeBSD is what it is, and t
Kent Stewart wrote:
> In 40 years of using computers, nothing has changed. The system's
> people are still primadona's and do nothing wrong.
>
> Get used to it :). Unfortunately!! People don't install OSes because
> of the OS as much as the codes they can run on it. The importance tree
> is invert
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 02:20:59PM -0700, Kent Stewart wrote:
> In 40 years of using computers, nothing has changed. The system's
> people are still primadona's and do nothing wrong.
>
> Get used to it :). Unfortunately!! People don't install OSes because
> of the OS as much as the codes they ca
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Long, Scott wrote:
> Nate Lawson wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Scott Long wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > **Warning, rant**
> > > The ports collection is one of the crown jewels of FreeBSD.
> > > Unfortunately, even as more ports committers are added, more and
> > > more ports break
>
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Scott Long wrote:
> > [...]
> > **Warning, rant**
> > The ports collection is one of the crown jewels of FreeBSD.
> > Unfortunately, even as more ports committers are added, more and
> > more ports break or become harder to build. On top of that,
> > pkg_add has become c
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Scott Long wrote:
> [...]
> **Warning, rant**
> The ports collection is one of the crown jewels of FreeBSD.
> Unfortunately, even as more ports committers are added, more and
> more ports break or become harder to build. On top of that,
> pkg_add has become close to worthless
12 matches
Mail list logo
