From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Mar 24 16:12:12 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from blizzard.sabbo.net (ns.sabbo.net [193.193.218.18])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5EA9837B718; Sat, 24 Mar 2001 16:12:00 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from max@vic.sabbo.net)
Received: from vic.sabbo.net (root@vic.sabbo.net [193.193.218.112])
	by blizzard.sabbo.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f2P0BnX24463;
	Sun, 25 Mar 2001 02:11:50 +0200
Received: (from max@localhost)
	by vic.sabbo.net (8.11.3/8.11.2) id f2P0Bk706927;
	Sun, 25 Mar 2001 02:11:46 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org)
From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org>
Message-Id: <200103250011.f2P0Bk706927@vic.sabbo.net>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/ipcheck Makefile
To: knu@iDaemons.org (Akinori MUSHA)
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 02:10:25 +0200 (EET)
Cc: sobomax@freebsd.org (Maxim Sobolev),
	lioux@freebsd.org (Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira), ports@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Akinori MUSHA" at Mar 25, 2001 08:08:06 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> 
> At Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:19:29 +0200 (EET),
> sobomax wrote:
> > > I don't think we are going to put all the Perl5 script ports into the
> > > perl5 category...
> > 
> > It is not such definitely clear for me. Having all ports written in
> > the same scripting language grouped into some virtual category does
> > have advantages. For example, this could help to indentify extension
> > modules available.
> 
> It depends.  Not all ports written in the same scripting language
> necessarily belong to the language's category.  Carrying it to
> extremes would make the category too much bloated and useless.  I'd
> rather keep finished products separated from a toolbox and materials
> when the products no longer need to be extended with them.
> 
> > After all, we put some things into x11 category just because they are
> > using x11 protocol (for example xterm, which essentually is a terminal
> > emulator, and as such belongs to sysutils or misc) but nobody disagre
> > with this.
> 
> Please read the Porters' Handbook again..  "misc" is the category for
> the ports which do not belong to any other non-virtual categories
> excluding lang-specific categories, and "sysutils" is the category for
> "system utilities".

Well, I know, but terminal emulator fits into these two definitions. Imagine
non-x11 terminal emulator, into which category you'd put it?

> XTerm is "X Terminal", thus it would definitely belong to "x11"
> together with rxvt and eterm,

Then we shall add all other ports that link with libX11 into x11
category.

> _only if_ it existed.  Nobody complains
> about a non-existent port. ;)

Ah, sorry, if my memory serves, some time ago I saw a PR to add
xterm as an separate port and did not checked if it exists. However,
there are several other *term in the x11 category, so my example
is valid.

> > Maybe it is better to introduce some more fine-grained language specific
> > virtual categories, i.e. {p5, py, ruby}-apps, {p5, py, ruby}-modules and
> > so on.
> 
> I think most users would care less as to what language an app is
> written in, so long as it's not strongly bound to a specific language.

Then why we have those `p5' prefixes all around the ports tree? ;)


-Maxim

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message