Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:08:31 -0400 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, Andrej Zverev <az@freebsd.org>, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org>, Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r367002 - head/devel/cmake Message-ID: <7FC7AB02-FF59-463E-812E-93E79F7FF907@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <54060331.70505@marino.st> 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> <5405EC34.8070507@marino.st> <57AEDB52-B216-4048-AE95-4BD8E15494DC@adamw.org> <5405EF6B.6040301@marino.st> <20140902190750.55281fef@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <54060331.70505@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Sep, 2014, at 13:49, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: > On 9/2/2014 19:07, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:25:15 +0200 John Marino = <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: >>> On 9/2/2014 18:20, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>>> On 2 Sep, 2014, at 12:11, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> >>>>> All this hinges on *if* it is indeed a policy. If it is, it = should >>>>> be enforced. >>>>=20 >>>> Okay well, until you=92re finished writing up your new policy, can = we >>>> make an option to prevent bringing in a dozen unneeded = dependencies? >>>=20 >>> That's a pretty unfair statement to make. >>> I never claimed it's my policy, only that's what I had been told in >>> #bsdports. >>>=20 >>> On this particular case, these are a dozen "light" dependencies so = if >>> you asking me to vote on it, I say sphinx is not worthy of an = exception, >>> honestly. The whole set builds in a couple of minutes as I recall. = You >>> are make it a much bigger deal that it really is, especially given = that >>> these dependencies are most likely already present due to other = ports >>> having required them. >>=20 >> There used to be a NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES variable similar to NOPORTDOCS >> and NOPORTEXAMPLES. NOPORTDOCS became the DOCS option and >> NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES became the MANPAGES option. Unlike NOPORTDOCS >> though it was only used when extra dependencies were needed to build >> manpages, otherwise manpages are always installed. So in this case >> it would be okay to add the option. >=20 >=20 > So what about all the other ports that use sphinx unconditionally? > Shouldn't they all be changed to behave exactly the same? Either they > all are optional dependencies or all are unconditional dependencies? >=20 > i would have thought that it's not "extra" dependencies, but "heavy" > dependencies and that it would be an exception to the rule. >=20 > In any case, Adam is right about one thing: This policy needs to be > documented. No, you=92re right, it=92s totally inconsistent. They should all be = consistent. I think you and I have different opinions of what constitutes heavy = dependencies. For me, it=92s not just the size of them (nobody disagrees = about doxygen), but also the number. I can very easily produce a tarball of prebuilt manpages to accompany = the port. Is that an appropriate compromise? # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7FC7AB02-FF59-463E-812E-93E79F7FF907>