Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:46:43 +0300 From: Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <20060508214643.GA86735@daemons.gr> In-Reply-To: <20060508214319.GA21378@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <20060508205703.GA11215@daemons.gr> <200605082120.k48LKxSi006193@peedub.jennejohn.org> <20060508213035.GA73976@daemons.gr> <20060508214319.GA21378@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:43:19PM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:30:35AM +0300, Sideris Michael wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:20:59PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > > > > > Sideris Michael writes: > > > > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:47:51PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > > > No one is taking away any rights. > > > > > > > > Of course. That's why every ports should have a configuration panel. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. I do not intend to convert any of my ports to use OPTIONS so > > > don't bother sending me patches. Many ports are so simple that adding > > > a configuration panel would be totally unnnecessary and ridiculous. > > > > So, if you have 10 of this ports as dependencies, you prefer go seperately > > to each port directory and search through the Makefile to find what KNOBS > > it provides. Nice. > > Even for ports that do use the OPTIONS framework you often have to search > through the Makefiles anyway to find out exactly what each option actually > does. Using OPTIONS will not gain you much in this regard. Oh, come on now. Each Option has a description next to it. Let's be reasonable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060508214643.GA86735>