Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 08 May 2006 23:07:05 +0200
From:      Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions
Message-ID:  <1147122425.18944.67.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20060508205703.GA11215@daemons.gr>
References:  <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <1147119806.18944.59.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508203709.GA32661@daemons.gr> <1147121271.18944.63.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508205703.GA11215@daemons.gr>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--=-rzBIzdSBR0NWJsLUlZvC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sideris Michael p=ED=B9e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:57 +0300:

> > > > > modify the existing Makefiles to include the OPTIONS framework=20
> > > >=20
> > > > That is the goal. Please submit patches whenever you hit the old st=
yle
> > > > Makefile.
> > >=20
> > > Submit patches for all Makefiles? No way. That is why maintainers exi=
st. It should be the
> > > responsibility of every maintainer. In maximum 1 week all Makefiles c=
ould be modified to=20
> > > use the OPTIONS framework. If you want by individuals, what can I say=
, I will have it done
> > > in 2 months :P Is it ok with you? Not fair I would say.
> >=20
> > Let's make a deal. Send an email to every maintainer, asking them nicel=
y
> > to convert their ports. Let's see what will happen :)
>=20
> So you are telling me indirectly that the maintainers are bored to dedica=
te max 10' to
> maintain something that is their responsibility?=20

Does that surprise you?

> If this is the case, then give me an=20
> address and I will be sending you periodically patches for every port.=20

send-pr(1) is fine

> But we will indeed=20
> make a deal. You are going to apply my patches and I will never see any n=
ew ports being=20
> added without having the OPTIONS framework.

Can't guarantee that about new ports, because, to use your line, I'm not
the only developer. But I will pursue any patches that convert ports to
OPTIONS.


--=20
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
              <pav@FreeBSD.org>

Pain clots and unformed lice pat this train.

--=-rzBIzdSBR0NWJsLUlZvC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBEX7L5ntdYP8FOsoIRAnAdAJ4wT3DUkiuwpRlwFJ5elcU1QuQRHwCeNjZ7
rgPtKozcDKU3E6SLhFwnits=
=dhCc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-rzBIzdSBR0NWJsLUlZvC--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1147122425.18944.67.camel>