Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:48:20 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: hetzels@westbend.net, jeh@FreeBSD.ORG, sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, joseph@randomnetworks.com, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www Makefile ports/www/frontpage-es Makefiledistinfo pkg-comment Message-ID: <20011230144820.A7229@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <200112291644.fBTGi3f50093@aldan.algebra.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:44:00AM -0500 References: <00b701c19036$21e6eba0$11fd2fd8@westbend.net> <200112291644.fBTGi3f50093@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat 2001-12-29 (11:44), Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > While one port for the FrontPage Web Admin pages would be ideal, > > how would bento build it (all languages, default language, one > > package/language)? > > Something needs to be done to Bento to be able to build multiple > packages from the same port. This is another task altogether. After all, > Bento is not part of the FreeBSD distribution -- it is our "in-house" > project. Last time I brought this up, I got told ``We're never going to do that again!''. Read the cvs log of bsd.port.mk, revisions 1.294 and 1.298. > > No need to re-build the FrontPage Extentsion port with the language of > > your choice. Also, allows you to install additional or remove > > FrontPage Web Admin language packages . > > Makes sense. If only we weren't so fixated on the pre-built packages, > there'd be nothing to talk about. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you that we should just ignore the pre-built packages. Especially since the main reason I've heard expressed by people as to why they don't use FreeBSD (besides certain people) is that we have low-quality binary packages and binary package management (relative especially to Debian). > > Something like: > > @comment PORT_BUILD_OPTION=%%PORT_OPTIONS%% > > No, a whole "language" will need to be devised -- using make's variables > to describe which options exist, and whether they are mutually exclusive > (radio buttons) or lists or on/off, etc... During interactive builds, > the bsd.ports.mk will also be able to use this to inform the user of the > possible options (some ports do it themselves now). I wrote something to support all this back in June 1999, look in the archives for portconf or pdlg or something. > But this is off-topic -- it is up to the "Bento team" to devise the new > scheme -- the existing "one package per port" one is insufficient. No, like everything, it's up to the person complaining to actually get the work done - either by motivating others to do the work, or doing it themselves. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@mithrandr.moria.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011230144820.A7229>