piggy said:
Yes, and this is a contraddiction in terms considering you only can upgrade programs to latest revision building them. This is the reason becouse it need:
Actually you just need to change the make-file, and then you can build from source to the version you want.
1) an OFFICIAL, base and officially maintained graphical tool to manage packages
Why should it be graphical? If you desparately want it, build it yourself. Interface the proper hooks, which I am sure there are, and get it done. Having a graphical interface requires running a bunch of stuff in parallel. A large number of the people using FreeBSD have multiple servers, these are much easier to handle with a text-based interface as they can be scripted. Scripting something for 10 server is faster and easier than clicking 10*10 times. Scaling can be a big issue.
So you have now introduced a second port/package/third-party-software management interface into the base system. For what reason? So that people can point-and-click?
2) an OFFICIAL and officially maintained tool to build packages (something between Portmaster and Portupgrade)
The ports system already works. Just go to your chosen port, and then issue the proper make-command. Easy as piece of pie.
3) an updated and maintained binary server for binary upgrades using the Official Graphical Tool in point 1.
Who will run it, who will pay for it, who will pay for maintenance. Who will build the packages? These things all cost money. Are you willing to pay for it?
No need for more. It obviously should retain the ability to compile and use third party source and to allow people to use what he want for compile, but OFFICIAL tools are there for compatibility and wide spread use.
That is why it would be a BAD idea to introduce more tools. Especially something like a graphical tool. IF the graphical tool is the official default, and I don't want a graphical interface, how do I now upgrade my software? You are forcing your choice on me. As it is now you can choose to introduce a graphical front-end to the available port-tools. Then you can point-and-click all day long. BUT it is quite difficult to have a text-based front-end for a graphical tool, requires scripting mouse-clicks etc etc. Which of these do you think gives the most compatability for a LARGE number of users with very varied choices?
It will be a real better OS and the effort will pay even in the short time in terms of usuability and user base.
No. It will not be a better OS. It might, for some people, be easier to use. But definately not for everybody.