Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 23:24:51 +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: <1147123491.18944.74.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <20060508211417.GA16847@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> <1147122425.18944.67.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508211417.GA16847@daemons.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-VZk1+r/Nk9FHifWaWjjq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sideris Michael p=ED=B9e v =FAt 09. 05. 2006 v 00:14 +0300:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:07:05PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Sideris Michael p??e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:57 +0300:
> >=20
> > > > > > > modify the existing Makefiles to include the OPTIONS framewor=
k=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > That is the goal. Please submit patches whenever you hit the ol=
d style
> > > > > > Makefile.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Submit patches for all Makefiles? No way. That is why maintainers=
exist. It should be the
> > > > > responsibility of every maintainer. In maximum 1 week all Makefil=
es could 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 n=
icely
> > > > to convert their ports. Let's see what will happen :)
> > >=20
> > > So you are telling me indirectly that the maintainers are bored to de=
dicate max 10' to
> > > maintain something that is their responsibility?=20
> >=20
> > Does that surprise you?
>=20
> Yes it does. Cause this defines an irresponsible person. And positions li=
ke these should
> not be occupied by irresponsible people.
That's how this project works, and, so far, it looks like a success.
So it's hardly gonna change.
> > > But we will indeed=20
> > > make a deal. You are going to apply my patches and I will never see a=
ny new ports being=20
> > > added without having the OPTIONS framework.
> >=20
> > Can't guarantee that about new ports, because, to use your line, I'm no=
t
> > the only developer. But I will pursue any patches that convert ports to
> > OPTIONS.
>=20
> So, can't there be a standard for Makefiles and enforce ALL people to use=
the OPTIONS framework?
We could define a policy about using OPTIONS instead of old style
tunables, but that will not convert existing ports automagically.
Also, I'd like to see all the known bugs in OPTIONS fixed, before we
impose it on all the people.
--=20
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
/usr/src scares me. I'm just not man enough to commit there.
--=-VZk1+r/Nk9FHifWaWjjq
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)
iD8DBQBEX7cjntdYP8FOsoIRAvz2AJ4oYCUUdBQnptaN6iXt8MAsg+FnuwCfUqGQ
lapERegjDp036Thm4wLI0uo=
=gCRK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-VZk1+r/Nk9FHifWaWjjq--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1147123491.18944.74.camel>