Date: 29 Dec 2001 01:16:48 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: jeh@FreeBSD.org, joseph@randomnetworks.com, lioux@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www Makefile ports/www/frontpage-es Makefiledistinfo pkg-comment Message-ID: <1009581412.225.2.camel@notebook> In-Reply-To: <200112282206.fBSM6kf36064@aldan.algebra.com> References: <200112282206.fBSM6kf36064@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-3KXZdJEhiEVeIssxeMzu Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2001-12-29 at 00:06, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > On 28 Dec, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > On Fri, 2001-12-28 at 20:32, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > >> On 28 Dec, James E. Housley wrote: > >> >> # > Added files: > >> >> # > www/frontpage-es Makefile distinfo pkg-comment > >> >> # > Log: > >> >> # > o New port frontpage-es version 5.0.2.2623: Microsoft Frontpa= ge > >> >> # > Spanish Web Administration > >> >> # > o Slave port of Microsoft Frontpage Arabic Web Administration= port > >> [...] > >> >> # This sequence of frontpage-<language> ports is pretty scary... > >> >> # Can't we have it all under one port with a dialog based > >> >> # configure to ask which language should be used? Defaulting to > >> >> # $LANG, for example... >=20 > >> >> I'd like to second this idea. In addition a quick glance > >> >> at the porter's handbook doesn't mention this situation, perhaps > >> >> it should. > >>=20 > >> > Except with a "language dialog" there wont be packages built for > >> > each language. > >>=20 > >> IMO, that, really, is a problem with our official package building > >> setup (bento). It hardly justifies having 15 new ports ON EVERY > >> FreeBSD INSTALLATION, that installs ports collection. > > > > Patches are welcome, ya know. >=20 > That's a bit off-topic, Max, please, don't change the subject. The ports > quality is the primary target. The wide choice of pre-built packages -- > the secondary. It seems, the quality of the ports collection can be > improved by merging the frontpage-<slave> ports into one (frontpage > itself), even if that means there will be no prebuilt packages for the > slaves for some time. Look, you are complaining that there is no way to build several packags from one port with "options", but don't provide any reasonable way it could be improved. Replacing several frontpage-foo ports with one port with "options" doesn't count, because it's worse than the current setup when pre-built packages are considered. I don't see why you think that pre-built packages are "the secondary". If the maintainer(s) feel comfortable maintaining N ports - so be it, it's his/their business, not yours. -Maxim --=-3KXZdJEhiEVeIssxeMzu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA8LP1goNu5t4iCBa8RAufMAJ9pt6/7322I6UyfSf6v+QhAc0AinACfQts6 7g1rROehNFNz6/ezblS1v3s= =ndFn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3KXZdJEhiEVeIssxeMzu-- 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?1009581412.225.2.camel>