[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ports working rules
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Ports working rules
- From: Marc Espie <Marc_(_dot_)_Espie_(_at_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:20:57 +0200
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 09:47:06AM -0500, TrouBle wrote:
> Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> > > From: Marc Espie <Marc_(_dot_)_Espie_(_at_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr>
> > > - NO NEW PORTS UNTIL *ALL* EXISTING ONES ARE FIXED...
> > Would it not be possible to 'retire' the current ports, and only allow into service the ones that
> > 'produce at least one package for one architecture'.
> And only allow for current versions to be placed in the tree... ie
> enlightenment is so dated. DR 16 is out and is 10 times better, Python
> itself is dated, imlib, qt, licq... all these are dated.... there are
> more recent current, better versions available
Just think !
Some ports are outdated, that's for sure, but we don't always want to
run for the very latest version.
Take qt, for instance...
Look at qt 2.0, now compare it with qt-1.44.
Now look at the applications which require qt-1.44...
try to make them work with qt-2.0.
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'