Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:11:32 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@freebsd.org>, Andrej Zverev <az@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r367002 - head/devel/cmake Message-ID: <5405EC34.8070507@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <1C547D2C-011A-41A6-AA9D-891A056DD87A@adamw.org> References: <201409021339.s82DdX36038975@svn.freebsd.org> <A80106E3-30CD-4B45-859E-2F96BD1264FF@adamw.org> <CAD5bB%2BiLj%2BaHOHH1R-4ZXVj=JPMdnxe04C6w50WjHsVFe6Hnsw@mail.gmail.com> <5405E33B.3040906@marino.st> <EBCC13BE-C282-4072-AAE4-A2CB6AD91EAC@adamw.org> <5405E50B.1030100@marino.st> <30FDC48D-0DF1-4EBA-918D-878048101E21@adamw.org> <5405E675.1090509@marino.st> <1C547D2C-011A-41A6-AA9D-891A056DD87A@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/2/2014 17:57, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 2 Sep, 2014, at 11:47, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> > wrote: > >> On 9/2/2014 17:42, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 2 Sep, 2014, at 11:40, John Marino >>> <freebsd.contact@marino.st> >>>>>> I understand that installing man pages is mandatory, that >>>>>> it should not be OPTION controlled. A lot of ports use >>>>>> sphinx so I don't know what the big deal about sphinx in >>>>>> particular is, but lets say it's something else far worse. >>>>>> man pages could be pregenerated and installed from $FILEDIR >>>>>> right? So there are alternatives, but unless I'm wrong >>>>>> about the policy using OPTIONS is not one of them (but I'm >>>>>> wrong a lot, so let's see what the answer is). >>>>> >>>>> How do you mean mandatory? >>>>> >>>>> OPTIONS_DEFINE+= MANPAGES OPTIONS_DEFAULT+= MANPAGES >>>>> MANPAGES_CONFIGURE_ON= --sphinx-man >>>>> >>>> >>>> By mandatory, I mean that a port that does that is violating >>>> policy. Documentation is optional (DOCS) but manpages are not. >>>> That's what I've understood. I've see ports that tried the >>>> above and I've removed code of that equivalent. >>>> >>>> John >>> >>> If it’s on by default I don’t see the problem. Who are we to >>> decide that nobody should ever be allowed to build a port without >>> manpages? >>> >> >> If it's the policy, it's the policy. > > That’s ridiculous. Where’s that policy? There’s MANPAGES_DESC in > bsd.options.desc.mk. I’m not the first person to think up disabling > manpages. > > 80 ports have a MANPAGES option. Should I let all 80 of those > maintainers know that you decided they can’t have that option > anymore? I don't know if/where it's written, that's what I was told. However, it makes sense. You want uniformity. I have no moral issues fixing 80 violations and saying to the maintainers that never should have made it through a review, and use pregenerated man pages if they don't like it. All this hinges on *if* it is indeed a policy. If it is, it should be enforced. >> However, I sorta kinda think a <bsd.port.mk> option to not package >> man pages for all ports may be coming for embedded usage. That >> won't solve this dependency that you are trying to fix, but it will >> solve the "i don't need manpages for any port" issue. >> >> Sphinx is not like tex though. It's really not a big deal >> practically speaking. > > Bringing in a dozen dependencies is EXACTLY what options is designed > for. But options aren't designed to bypass policy, that's the point. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5405EC34.8070507>