Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:54:34 +0900 From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@iDaemons.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/ipcheck Makefile Message-ID: <86lmpu2v9x.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: <200103250011.f2P0Bk706927@vic.sabbo.net> References: <no.id> <200103250011.f2P0Bk706927@vic.sabbo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Sun, 25 Mar 2001 02:10:25 +0200 (EET),
sobomax wrote:
> > 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?
Probably it's misc until we have a category called something like
"terms". By definition, "x11" is like "misc" for X applications.
> > 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.
Never! Didn't you really read the handbook?
<para><literal>x11</literal> is used as a secondary category only
when the primary category is a natural language. In particular,
you should not put <literal>x11</literal> in the category line
for X applications.</para>
So, by definition, "x11" isn't applicable if a port belongs in any
other non-virtual non-natural-lang-specific categories. It clearly
says that you should not put "x11" in the category line only because
it's an X application.
> > > 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? ;)
Because a name "Foo-Bar" isn't clear enough to state that it's a Perl5
module. "cvs2cl" doesn't need to be written as "p5-cvs2cl" nor be put
in the perl5 category because it's not essential for users if it is
written in Perl5 or not.
When one wants to hack and fix an app, one can look into the port to
see the dependency.
On the other hand, there are tcl* and tk* categories to group the
ports that use specific versions of tcl* and tk*. My understanding is
that they are so categorized because Tcl/Tk is considered as a toolkit
rather than just a language, and because there has been an annoying
incompatibility problem between versions. I'm not sure, but at least
the handbook has explicit definitions of those categories which most
stock ports regularly conform to.
--
/
/__ __ Akinori.org / MUSHA.org
/ ) ) ) ) / FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp
"We're only at home when we're on the run, on the wing, on the fly"
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?86lmpu2v9x.wl>