Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:36:27 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, nork@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports CHANGES UPDATING ports/Mk bsd.port.mk ports/accessibility/linux-atk Makefile pkg-plist ports/archivers/stuffit Makefile ports/astro/linux-setiathome Makefile ports/audio/baudline Makefile ports/audio/linux-arts ... Message-ID: <20050626183627.38a1b725@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <200506261748.49553.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <200506172259.j5HMxTad068378@repoman.freebsd.org> <200506261307.56772.lofi@freebsd.org> <20050626171623.63802b99@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <200506261748.49553.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:48:45 +0200
Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, 26. June 2005 17:16, you wrote:
>
> > > > The X11R6 distribution contains servers, utilities and more (libs/data
> > > > files/...). Specifying them and then adding "local packages/ports"
> > > > suggest to me, that not only binaries which come with the X11R6
> > > > distribution are allowed to reside here.
> > >
> > > PLEASE STOP being silly for the sake of argument!
> >
> > This is how I read it. Really. I'm honest.
>
> Okay. But even if I read it your way, i.e. each line by itself, not caring
> about the context of the parent directory, your change still violates
Sorry, that's not my POV. You have to take the de-facto standard into
account. At the time I've made myself familiar with FreeBSD every
X11 using software I used was installed to X11BASE. Reading hier(7)
resulted in understanding it as "X11 stuff (the servers, utilities,
various ports) gets installed into X11BASE". Differentiating libraries
from utilities installed from ports/packages didn't made (and doesn't
makes) sense to me (either each port which makes use of the X11
distribution is installed into X11BASE, or no such port at all).
> hier(7):
>
> X11R6/ X11R6 distribution executables, libraries, etc
> (optional).
> bin/ X11R6 binaries (servers, utilities, local
> packages/ports)
> [...]
> lib/ X11R6 libraries.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"X11 binaries" refers to "servers, utilities, local packages/ports". I
read "X11R6 libraries" similar to "X11 binaries", I interpret it as:
someone was too lazy to make a list for the lib/ entry too.
That's how I understand this. I hope I was able to successfully
describe my POV.
To make it clear, I don't object to only have the X11 distribution in
X11BASE. I just tried to tell you that the current way of doing it
isn't senseless (and I didn't made up my example out of blue air, I've
described a setup). Whatever policy is chosed, I'm fine with it, since
I'm able to setup systems the way it is best for the planned operation.
The point I tried to make with my commit was "consistency". A consistent
system is more ergonomic than a system with a lot of exceptions (even
when the policy which was chosed is not the best one... but the
definition of "best" is subject to the usage of something).
> > > > - As soon as a new way of doing it is published, I will follow it.
> > >
> > > It really is colleagues like you that make working on FreeBSD that extra
> > > bit satisfactory.
> >
> > It would be nice if you could calm down and keep the discussion on a
> > technical level.
>
> *sigh* Sorry about that, I let myself get worked up. But please see above.
No problem.
Have a nice day,
Alexander.
--
Press every key to continue.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050626183627.38a1b725>