Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:34:02 -0000 From: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD GNOME Users <gnome@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: The GNOME meta-port Message-ID: <3FA6E5E3.3050607@liwing.de> In-Reply-To: <1067900975.817.81.camel@gyros> References: <1067879387.817.17.camel@gyros> <3FA69180.3060003@liwing.de> <1067900975.817.81.camel@gyros>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 12:33, Jens Rehsack wrote: > > [My soapbox elided] > > >>Ok, I can follow you so far, but: >>I don't think the only instant-workstation could be a kde one. >>Ok, I was slightly advanced to FreeBSD when I decided to install it >>on my desktop, but eg. people coming from OS/2 will feel more like >>home on a GNOME desktop. So an instant-gnome-workstation and a move >>of instant-workstation to instant-kde-workstation is not impossible >>(and would make sense, maybe). But it's on another discussion. >> >>And greg's opinion to what's belonging to a meta-port or not >>is very interesting. He didn't update his instant-server, even >>squid-2.5 became the STABLE-release. >> >>What I'm trying to say: meta-ports are fine and great for easy use, >>but the users should have the chance to request changes to the >>default. In the case of x11/gnome2 they had to ask the gnome >>developers, 'cause the defauls came from there. But if it's a >>freebsd own meta-port (as instant-workstation is), the freebsd users >>should have a chance to request for changes. So, x11/gnome2 and >>misc/instant-workstation aren't fair comparable. > > I think you'll find it as difficult to convince Greg to modify his > meta-port as it would be to convince GNOME ;-). That's bad to hear. I thought, FreeBSD's maintainers should be progressive people? But several mails I sent to greg must be get's lost on the way into sth. like a black hole :-) So it seems you're right. But maybe a new meta-port like instant-gnome-workstation isn't something greg wouldn't reject (as long he doesn't have to maintain it). I'll think about it and send a mail when I think it's grown enough (to get instantly told what I've not seen/respected). >>>My point is that meta-ports are geared more toward newbies. Advanced >>>users can bypass the meta-port, and install only the bits they want. >>>Really advanced users (or admins doing bulk installations) can build >>>their own meta-ports to easy the task of reinstallation. >> >>Maybe a message should be added to such meta-ports which says: >>This is a default meta-port which is for generic use only. >>If you want to customize your workstation, you should create >>your own one by copying this meta-port into >>ports/local/your-own-meta-port and modify whatever you want. >> >>Ok, not in this words, but maybe this could really make sense to >>a) avoid future discussions like this (because the submitter >> disn't search for the right words in the archives), and >>b) it's just an instruction for users which will become >> more advanced of what to do. > > > I like this idea. Perhaps this is something that should go into the FAQ > as well. Are you volunteering to write something up? I don't really understand. Do you mean: me - an absolute unpolite guy - should write a port message which guides other nuts like me how to customize their meta-ports? And you want me to write even a similar message for the FAQ? I can give it a shot - not next few weeks, but at least after I did finally test the patches for mga and x-server eric sent to me. Best, Jens
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FA6E5E3.3050607>