RFC: Restructuring GNOME meta-ports

[Piero]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:50:49 -0500, Adam Weinberger wrote
> >> (01.05.2004 @ 1843 PST): Joe Marcus Clarke said, in 1.9K: <<
> > I was thinking maybe we should borrow something from garnome 
seeing as
> > since they've borrowed practically everything from us already ;
-) (the
> > ports system, that is).  What if we restructured the GNOME 
meta-ports to
> > look something like this:
> > 
> > x11/gnome2 (leave it the way it is)
> > x11/gnome2-lite (leave it the way it is)
> 
[...]
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I'd like to consider some different organizations.
> 
> I'd like to see stuff broken down in ways similar to how 
> the ports tree does it. I think that all mail and news 
> apps, for example, should be kept together, and should be 
> under a productivity heading that includes the components 
> listed above for gnome2-office, as well as things like 
> gimp and maybe bluefish.
> 

I'm not sure I got your idea the right way, it is 2 pm right now 
here. But I don't think such grouping of similar apps can be useful 
to the users. It might be good for categorizing ports, but do you 
ever install the whole mail or news directory? I don't think so.

I would rather choose the best or the most popular app for these new 
meta ports instead of putting a couple of competing ports. 

I do like evo as a contact manager and calendar client, but I much 
prefer sylpheed as a MUA, but this was my choice to have them both, 
but would I install Balsa also having the others? 

Of course, people should be aware that those are in no way 
"suggested" or "official" choices nor for GNOME or GNOME at FreeBSD, 
and they can tweak their packages as they are able to dive into the 
ports tree. Maybe with pkg-descr?

-- 
 Piero
 piero at poprostu.pl