[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No more ports of unfree software
I understand that ports@ is an official mailing list, but I don't see
the harm in asking a question someplace that will more then likely turn
up an answer, even if it's unsupported officially. Where else would you
ask a question about OpenBSD and expect it to be answered?
One good side effect of this is that stupid questions get archived
forever so that people can search and get an answer without having to
Jolan Luff wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:41:47PM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>As far as the "not officially from OpenBSD", I don't think that argument
>>would hold any water, because the Makefile and any patches would
>>obviously be open for anyone to read, and one could even download the
>>source from the official site and run md5 themselves if they dont trust
>>it. I think after a while, people will see that this repository can be
>>trusted and will use it as an alternative if they wish...
> Well, Darren Reed released OpenBSD+ipf and misc@ got some mailings about
> requests for help with it. Unofficial stuff that clouds what OpenBSD
> really is causes annoyance.
> I can only see the same thing happening with an unoffical ports tree.
> Even when displaying warnings at every turn, e-mail to ports@ will
> undoubtedly turn up.
> /usr/ports/mystuff is there for people to use. Throw your favorite
> unofficial / unfree / removed ports there.