4

The additional tags just aren't necessary and should be symlinked.

->

->

->

1

I have mixed feelings about these merges.

provides some useful information -- often ports will relocate configuration files to conform with FreeBSD's standard filesystem hierarchy. That being said it's more important to know what software we're talking about than the fact that it was installed from a port rather than built by hand.

The version tags are a mixed bag: There are some practical changes across major version numbers, but I don't really know that it's significant enough to warrant a tag per version the way we do with Windows.

2
  • 1
    The ports tag only has 4 questions in it.... If the fact that the software is in the ports tree has any relevance to the question the fact should be be communicated through the tag. Same with the version tags. I might have different feelings if the tags were well used, but they're not.
    – Chris S
    Jan 7 '12 at 3:23
  • 1
    The fact that the tags aren't used is the best argument for merging them. If it turns out that we have another apocalyptic upheaval like the 4.x->5.x transition we may want to revisit version number tags, but barring that we're probably better off with one tag (this is also symmetrical with what we have for NetBSD & OpenBSD).
    – voretaq7
    Jan 7 '12 at 21:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .