From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Sep 16 22:44:49 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066A2BDDE44 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:44:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD00D4C for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:44:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id D9D7BBDDE43; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74DFBDDE41 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:44:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from nm24.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm24.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.62.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F64ED4B for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:44:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1474065721; bh=UImNVfytXlf3MMeON2abe0WI1T9c0sAX3aARw+uZ0RI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=voDa1sYNZ/+Oi2yVroUGsRfALG63gqu+5VH8cosMn8qm6xvppCdiIXQBizv2BOr7ajZYBMoAhN3wVcasahfanKXod8rrIGaMFZmDYGQc9C7IfaH/chVIRus9LpxILrmjSTgqo0CZJBFJp2TQuYilOO4Rglrvvvxdy4VCkHzFYEw= Received: from [216.39.60.172] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2016 22:42:01 -0000 Received: from [67.195.23.145] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2016 22:42:01 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp117.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2016 22:42:01 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 144167.5601.bm@smtp117.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: Ct1MFkAVM1kcdvB3bStDhRQiKwzfSI6TCCU6l.SVE.vtrLR US0uwZNlenIeKPDwSxRky8ZIvJe_D1O.yBhtGSAWgIVwPAVACkG_6TiziiNM 9BtMaahwcagc.90qvURDjAHm2IMMGEQT70jDNAt0QDwnL92svvGThJ336FW9 vXvjPTTVdgtkFA93vGpi2Z8o.KQH.Z4gfGda3OFvPu9oA4ZexQPFHcfL3qVB MB3plOLyGpmjlKOYqODiw5FafcFLqINZS.lXl.Dq7Xe1n1F24jKc4C8CDFlY WDHLhtS1qxlER_lO2.EcQvp4CQduYZKnSGmKQYxfENZATwD0b7JzPv_sG5Vk FbzB7X8_RJ3VXtGcc_qbSsSv1xQ1pInTzOu3A6lvph9h6f79_pnrWXOGAl3. zWHTs_hapylefeWn9S7imifBeocc7bjLFWokvsCOA..M_nFsXOTaZ2L8i0oa F5BLJoOnHn6oSvNDdHIwOK6lc.Sns3EBI4UT4PtFMvpWByU14UMWXPt3yGf9 PIwgQpYLLvsUSO2Y8_Jx2mlfUHrSEuduIoIbKZUNSzDITGxWEIZBuiSMH X-Yahoo-SMTP: pPvqnOaswBBbYZLVYFzvU7GaowLcbNioPp.aF8KvOjZk From: To: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: Checking port option descriptions Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:42:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <3de26d31-e4e0-ddc4-27ae-03bab473849b@ohlste.in> In-Reply-To: <3de26d31-e4e0-ddc4-27ae-03bab473849b@ohlste.in> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:44:49 -0000 On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:11:51 -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote: >"[S]ome" being the operative word here. I don't disagres with your basic >premise, but the truth is, at the end of the day it's up to the user to >understand the consequences of his decisions. If a user doesn't know >what 'XYZ' is, then adding 'Include protocols for use with XYZ servers' >probably doesn't tell him or her that much. On the other hand, if a user >knows what 'XYZ' is, then 'Enable XYZ' is likely enough information with >which to make a decision. > >So in this case there are likely to be two categories of users: those >who know what 'XYZ' is and those who do not. Those in the former have >the information either way. Those in the latter have three basic choices: > >1) Educate themselves before possibly adding software to their system >that they do not fully understand, thereby moving into to the former >category. > >2) Choose the default, on the (very possibly mistaken) assumption that >the porter "knows what's best." Unfortunately that assumption may be a >bad one, as the porter/maintainer is more likely to choose something >that satisfies "most users" and loads people with unnecessary >dependencies (thus defeating much of the benefit of building your own >ports), or worse, to choose options that work best for him or her. Most people want to *use* the machine they're integrating. For them it's not a pastime or hobby. Very few such people have the time or energy to "educate themselves" enough to understand the interactive effects of the many MANY options for each of the ports they want to install. In part, that's due to the useless "comments" Warren rightly calls out in his post. So yes, in hope of being safe, they'll accept the defaults. With real, thoughtful, information-rich comments, that might actually happen less often. The same problem affects software development and causes a lot of code to be re-written from scratch rather than maintained. Told to comment their code, too many programmers write things like " x=x+1 ; // increment x" and are baffled when more experienced engineers are scathing during code review. After all, they did comment each line, so what's the problem? If people want to understand what the code does, they should study it!