>>>>> "DJB" == "D J Bernstein" <djbcr.yp.to>:
DJB>
DJB> Hans Insulander writes:
>> You do not offer people to choice
DJB>
DJB> Some packages in /package allow distributor forks; some don't. This has
DJB> no relevance to the question.
DJB>
DJB> What is the harm of using /package? If the author releases a package in
DJB> /package, why would you want to move it somewhere else?

DJB> P.S. Am I the only engineer on this mailing list?

No, you are not. I've been trying to stay out of this. I am a programmer,
administrator, and user of many types of Unix and Unix-like systems. I
don't like /package. I don't care what your reasoning is. I read all of
your information (and I thank you for providing that information), but you
haven't changed my mind.

Any software that I compile and forces me to use a location not of my
choosing, be that /package or /usr/local or /chimpnet, is wrong. Software
is to be installed where I want it, not the author.

As to the point of /package making it easier for developers and users,
that is pure bullcrap. Almost every user I have to deal with has no clue
about where stuff is installed and could care less about it. They just
want it to run. It is invisible to them. It is in some path some tech
setup and they don't care. A lot of developers (probably not any on this
list, but many that I work with) don't care either. They set it and forget
it.

I also don't like all the config files being in /package. I want them in a
per machine location, like /etc. If I am mounting a common repository of
binaries on a large number of machines (and yes, I know how to do it
automatically with allowances for architecture and OS differences. We do
it at work for 800+ hosts all the time) I don't need them all to have the
same config files. Not every machine is serving the same thing. But that
is just a small issue.

The main issue here is that the way you do things is not the way that
OpenBSD has chosen to do things by default. There are plenty of mechanisms
for users and administrators of OpenBSD to operate in patterns other than
the default. I understand you don't like it. You have presented your
arguments and the OpenBSD community has rebuffed you to their satisfaction.
While it may not satisfy you I think you need to take a step back and
realize that not every one will agree with you (I certainly don't at this
time). Please stop trying to force us into your philosophy in this way.
Changes may or may not happen in the future. Your actions in this matter
aren't helping anyone here to see your ideas as a clean and clear
solution.

The OpenBSD team has made it's decision on the side of safety (rather than
being sorry about it down the road). I for one like this erring on the
side of caution. If I or any user wants your packages we can download the
source and install them on our own. The existence of the ports tree does
not guarantee your software will be included.

-dan

-- 
dan weeks - codemonkey - http://danimal.org/

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]