[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb_(_at_)_cr_(_dot_)_yp_(_dot_)_to>
- Date: 4 Sep 2001 19:53:51 -0000
- Automatic-legal-notices: Copyright 2001, D. J. Bernstein. My transmission of this message to you does not constitute a copyright waiver or any other limitation of my rights, even if you have told me otherwise.
- Mail-followup-to: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
> Who are you to have the right to say to OpenBSD people what they must do?
I'm not saying what OpenBSD must do. I'm asking the /package opponents
to rationally justify their opposition, if they can, rather than
behaving like religious fanatics who say---as you did---that the world
will end if a file is named /package/math/nistp224/src/PUBLIC.base.
My web pages at http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage.html explain in detail how
/package eliminates several existing problems for users and programmers.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that these problems have occurred,
that they are continuing to occur, and that /package eliminates them.
> > What's the _harm_ in using /package?
> Because we use to have /usr/local for this purpose.
The purpose is not the same. /package is a global namespace; /usr/local
isn't. /package allows system packages; /usr/local doesn't. Anyway, you
didn't answer the question: what is the _harm_?
> We got clean and structured tree,
Loaded words, again not backed up by any engineering sense.