"cask" ports just keep on rolling in...

Jonathan Stickel jjstickel at gmail.com
Sun Feb 7 15:13:38 UTC 2021

On 2/7/21 04:48 , macports-dev-request at lists.macports.org wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 11:35:58PM -0800, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>> although I was concerned about getting this pattern right before we
>> had too many of these to fix, it does seem the admins feel there's
>> really no issue to worry about here.
> I don't like this tone, Ken. "The admins" have as much obligation to
> provide infrastructure as anybody else in this project, which is none.
> If you feel repackaging binary archives is a thing MacPorts should
> support better, please invest the time to come up with patches that do
> this, or find somebody that will.

If my interject, as a long-time user and observer of open-source 
software and occasional contributor, this bit of conflict is a common 
theme. There is always a tension between "doing it right" and "getting 
it done". Ken seems to be leaning towards "getting it done". I 
appreciate this a lot. I've been frustrated, at times, over the years by 
languishing broken ports, especially when I offered patches/PRs that 
received no response. What to do when there isn't consensus on a 
particular issue or a new policy, like this one about binary-only ports? 
"Doing it right" then means doing nothing at all. When volunteers are 
willing to work on something but face this sentiment, they tend to stop 
contributing. I don't know the answers but urge caution before things 
get personal.

Regarding binary ports, I guess I don't understand what is the point. 
Why not require users install the upstream binaries themselves and use 
`path:` dependencies for things that depend on them? I know this isn't 
ideal because it isn't automated, but I consider that a secondary issue.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list