From owner-freebsd-doc Tue May 29 21:33:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3853C37B42C for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 21:33:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from hornet.unixfreak.org (hornet [63.198.170.140]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC78C3E28; Tue, 29 May 2001 21:33:26 -0700 (PDT) To: Mike Meyer Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/27709: [PATCH] WITHOUT_X is used by many ports, but not documented. In-Reply-To: <15124.28553.521171.74698@guru.mired.org>; from mwm@mired.org on "Tue, 29 May 2001 22:56:57 -0500" Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:33:26 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010530043326.CC78C3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mike Meyer writes: > Dima Dorfman types: > > I tend to agree with Pete here. It doesn't make sense to document it > > unless all the ports which can be compiled either with or without X > > use this hook. > > Which came first, the support or the documentation? Ideally? The documentation. In reality, esp. in a volunteer project? Probably the support. I don't think we'd have a flawless multi-threaded kernel overnight if somebody documented it :-). > > If it's not documented, how are port maintainers going to know that > they need to support it? How are users going to know that it should be > supported, so they can report the lack of support to port maintainers? > And so on. > > FWIW, I think the name should be WITHOUT_X, not WITHOUT_X11. Unless > there are no X10 ports, and no chance of there ever being an X12. I agree with your points in the paragraph above this one, but I'd like to see at least *some* support from the ports team before we start documenting it. At this point it may do more harm than good; what if you chose the wrong hook? Also, it's one thing to document something when 1% of the ports don't support it (e.g., PREFIX), and another when 50% of the ports don't support it (e.g., (WITHOUT|NO)_X(11)). I guess what I'm saying is that there should at least be the *desire* to support it before it's documented. (See my first paragraph in this e-mail.) Regards, Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org > > > > Pete Fritchman writes: > > > The following reply was made to PR docs/27709; it has been noted by GNATS > . > > > > > > From: Pete Fritchman > > > To: mwm@mired.org > > > Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: docs/27709: [PATCH] WITHOUT_X is used by many ports, but not > doc > > > umented. > > > Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:12:23 -0400 > > > > > > The problem currently is that it's fairly inconsistent right now in the > > > ports tree wrt WITHOUT_X and WITHOUT_X11 (just do a find /usr/ports > > > -name Makefile -exec grep -H WITHOUT_X {} \; and you'll see all the > > > instanaces). I *think* WITHOUT_X11 is the proper hook though. > > > > > > | --- share/man/man5/make.conf.5 Fri May 18 07:27:37 2001 > > > | +++ /tmp/make.conf.5 Mon May 28 10:08:14 2001 > > > | @@ -727,6 +727,10 @@ > > > | .Pq Vt bool > > > | Set this if you are a resident of the USA so that ports that > > > | need to can attempt to comply with U.S. export regulations. > > > | +.It Va WITHOUT_X > > > | +.Pq Vt bool > > > | +Set this so that ports that can be built with or without X support wi > ll build > > > | +without X support by default. > > > | .It Va WRKDIRPREFIX > > > | .Pq Vt str > > > | Where to create temporary files used when building ports. > > > | > > > | >Release-Note: > > > | >Audit-Trail: > > > | >Unformatted: > > > | > > > | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > | with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message > > > > > > -- > > > Pete Fritchman > > > Databits Network Services, Inc. > > > finger petef@databits.net for PGP key > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message > > > > > > -- > Mike Meyer http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ > Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message