Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 02:10:25 +0200 (EET) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> To: knu@iDaemons.org (Akinori MUSHA) Cc: sobomax@freebsd.org (Maxim Sobolev), lioux@freebsd.org (Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira), ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/ipcheck Makefile Message-ID: <200103250011.f2P0Bk706927@vic.sabbo.net> In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Akinori MUSHA" at Mar 25, 2001 08:08:06 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> 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 cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103250011.f2P0Bk706927>