From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 29 02:03:51 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F13106564A for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:03:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6938FC14 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:03:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id q0T27phR069307 for questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:07:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:07:51 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Bonomi Message-Id: <201201290207.q0T27phR069307@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20120128233048.GA7513@slackbox.erewhon.net> Cc: Subject: Re: When I put up any version of FBSD I usually try to install Maxima ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:03:51 -0000 Roland Smith wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:09:34PM +0100, Michel Talon wrote: > > > occur, a port maintainer should only include the *strict minimum* > > dependencies necessary to make the port work, it is not his job to include > > the whole kitchen sink of dependencies that could be useful in some cases. > > So you would advocate to set all options to off be default? Why not submit a > PR to that effect? _I_ would suggest that it might make good sense to have as many as _three_ choices of binary installations for ports with 'lots' (FSVO 'lots' :) of dependencies -- a 'bare minimums' working version, a 'typical' version, and an 'including the kitchen sink' version. Logic: give the -user- the choice -- DON'T "make it for him" > > And who is to say what is "appropriate", other than the respective maintainers > of the port in question? In my opinion, packages are a dead-end street. They > might be convenient but they are also "one size fits all". Which as your > message demonstrates is not the case. :-) Three sizes should give a better fit for a lot of people, see above.