Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 01:28:05 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/wine Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/emulators/wine/files patch-dlls-wineoss.drv Message-ID: <20110516012805.GA88914@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110515180819.GB29366@lonesome.com> References: <201105140021.p4E0LlP7029193@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110514082018.GC97304@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1105150744430.28608@gerinyyl> <20110515155920.GB19328@FreeBSD.org> <20110515180819.GB29366@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 01:08:19PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 03:59:20PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Carefully selected and reasonable defaults is one of the strong sides > > of ports (and thus packages) that we offer, despite all aforementioned > > drawbacks. > > User feedback at the last 2 conferences that I have been to, is that we > are insufficiently consistent in our defaults. (In particular, X11 and > CUPS are frequently mentioned as offenders; there are others.) This > primarily affects our default-built packages. I would say there is only minor CUPS inconsistency (most of the times it is correctly disabled; few remaining ports should be converted I think); for X11 it's a bit more tricky: roughly, if a port is likely enough to be used in non-X11 environment (or it's a server only thing), no X11 support by default seems reasonable for package. Otherwise having X11 dependency is natural, since those bits would be installed by 99% of desktop users anyways. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110516012805.GA88914>