From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 14 16:08:55 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D4716A418 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:08:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from smtp3.utdallas.edu (smtp3.utdallas.edu [129.110.10.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83DD813C469 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:08:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from utd59514.utdallas.edu (utd59514.utdallas.edu [129.110.3.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ED3654FF for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:54 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:54 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20071214121906.1241dcdd@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <475F7390.9090509@gmail.com> <0F330142-A3CA-4E6E-84BD-FDE55A8E3AEE@yahoo.com> <20071213111050.O6078@wonkity.com> <200712140312.47837.danny@ricin.com> <4761F9E2.7090706@gmail.com> <20071214121906.1241dcdd@gumby.homeunix.com.> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: Limitations of Ports System X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:08:55 -0000 --On Friday, December 14, 2007 12:19:06 +0000 RW wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:34:58 -0500 > "Aryeh M. Friedman" wrote: > >> Namely if I build abc with options 123 and 345 and >> def with 345 and 678 then 345 will be cached for def since we already >> set it for abc. > > How do you know the user wants 345 set on both ports? > > It might be a useful stable feature on "abc", but causes lock-ups on > "def" SInce I've already killfiled Aryeh, I can only infer what you are responding to and respond to him. But let me state this emphatically in the hopes it will get through his thick skull. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF PORTS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR USERS. Please repeat that one hundred times until it gets through. No port should *ever* make decisions on a users behalf. Suggestions, yes (e.g. OPTIONS that are enabled by default.) Decisions, no. If you depend on another port *and* on certain knobs in that dependency being enabled, then *tell* the user that during your port's install and let them decide how to handle it. DO NOT enable those knobs yourself, no matter how tempting it may be. It is beyond impossible for anyone to know what every user who is installing ports already has on their boxes or what they might want to add or ***what you might break***. Once you begin making decisions for them, you could well stomp all over something that was functioning perfectly normally and break a critical box. DON'T DO IT. That is so Microsoftian it's not funny. -- Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/