Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:10:58 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: sobomax@FreeBSD.org 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: <200112290711.fBT7B1f42822@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <1009581412.225.2.camel@notebook>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 Dec, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> >> On 28 Dec, James E. Housley wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> # 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... >> >> >> 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. >> >> > Except with a "language dialog" there wont be packages built for >> >> > each language. >> >> 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. >> 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. This is wrong. Totally wrong. I was not complaining about this. jeh was. I merely said if such problem exists, a bunch of <port>-<slave> ports is not a way to fix it. (IMO, this is a rather small problem, too -- whoever installs a server package like Apache with FP better know how to build a port.) > 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. Was not my proposition, I honestly don't care for prebuilt packages. > I don't see why you think that pre-built packages are "the secondary". Well, for a number of reasons. FreeBSD is not known for its extensive collection of pre-built packages -- every OS has them, and some Linux distros, probably, include more. It is known for its PORTS collection. The ports should not be bent too far for the sake of pre-built packages. A bunch of frontpage-foos bends it too far, in my and a few others' opinion. > If the maintainer(s) feel comfortable maintaining N ports - so be it, You and yours truly a FreeBSD committers. The latter is purely a ports committer. The quality of the ports _collection_ is our business. When wrong items are added to any collection, the quality of the collection suffers. > it's his/their business, not yours. Max, you seem to consider it YOUR business to lecture me in any thread you can (and in some others). Please stop, it is annoying. -mi 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?200112290711.fBT7B1f42822>