On 5/25/2012 16:59, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:55:56PM +0200, John Marino wrote: > Infrastructure is needed, rules are needed and must be enforced. > This sub-project, pkgsrc, has the resources to do that, but isn't. Formal rules are needed only when there's a social problem that cannot be solved by community consensus. Again: what *problem* are you trying to solve?
I've solved my problem.I'm probably not going to be around for the next 4 weeks, so I think what I've already said stands on it's own merit.
I'm inclined to agree with asau@. The criterion you're applying seems to be based on whether the software is Free.
You may believe what you wish - I've been pretty consistent in saying I believe the distfile needs to be available to all users or the package needs to be removed. That's got nothing to do with the "free" software movement, but everything to do with equal benefits to all users.
The issue is that by marking the packages that way, rather than with a semantically-meaningful tag (which would need to be implemented) you're adding to the entropy of the system. In a few years when this little argument is long forgotten, it will be (at best) a hassle to track down why all these packages are marked NOT-FOR-DRAGONFLY.
No, that's not true. I added a comment in addition to each tag referencing the message that explains it. Of all the objections, this one is really not valid.
A semantically-meaningful tag would also allow these packages to stop polluting the bulk build results on *all* platforms, not just yours, without making them unavailable.
Maybe, but one of the drivers is to make it clear to regular users that build from source that the package WILL NOT BUILD and THAT'S EXPECTED. We've gotten bug reports on these things, and the user was confused why the package was broken. A nice message like "This package is not for DragonFly-i386" is clear to them, no confusion. The bulk build masking is nice, but its not the only reason.
John