From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 8 22:21:28 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D6716A403 for ; Mon, 8 May 2006 22:21:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from msid@daemons.gr) Received: from jefferson.hostingzoom.com (jefferson.hostingzoom.com [216.118.117.94]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B0843D46 for ; Mon, 8 May 2006 22:21:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from msid@daemons.gr) Received: from [88.218.36.6] (port=63421 helo=localhost) by jefferson.hostingzoom.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.52) id 1FdE6W-0007RJ-6o; Mon, 08 May 2006 17:21:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 01:21:19 +0300 From: Sideris Michael To: Paul Schmehl Message-ID: <20060508222119.GA87391@daemons.gr> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <20060508212441.GB767@picobyte.net> <20060508213504.GB73976@daemons.gr> <445FC2C0.40700@utdallas.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <445FC2C0.40700@utdallas.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - jefferson.hostingzoom.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - daemons.gr X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:21:28 -0000 On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: > Sideris Michael wrote: > > > >Maybe I am not an expert regarding ports, but I thought there is a way to > >convert all ports Makefiles without any problems. Maybe I am wrong. > > > You're wrong about something much more fundamental than that. *Only* > the port maintainer knows why he or she created the port the way they > did. They may have *very* good reasons for *not* using OPTIONS, and for > anyone to assume that OPTIONS (or any other knob in Makefiles) should > simply be forced upon all port maintainers is simply wrong. I suspect > you'll run off more than a few by doing that. I never said to force the usage of OPTIONS. Force the usage of KNOBS. ONE of them, not both. > If you think the port committers, who are simply trying to stay above > water, have any idea what most of the ports they commit actually do, > you're dreaming. No one can know what 14,000+ ports do. That's *why* > you have ports maintainers - because they (supposedly) actually know > what the ports they maintain do, and they care about doing it right. > (I'm generalizing, of course, but I'm certain it's true for the vast > majority of them.) So in that sense if I become a port maintainer and I find a new way, I will include it. Since I will consider it to be the best way for a specific port. Come on.. > The first thing *you* should do is "grep -r 'MAINTAINER=' /usr/ports/* | > grep 'ports@FreeBSD.org' " and locate some ports that no longer have > maintainers. Then volunteer to maintain them. *After* you've gained > some experience (and I guarantee you will make mistakes and learn new > things), *then* you can suggest major changes to the way ports are > maintained. I don't have port maintainer experience, that's for sure. And of course I would make mistakes. That's why I am throwing ideas through these emails. I am merely proposing stuff. > For me personally, OPTIONS are optional, depending upon the port I'm > working on. For some, OPTIONS would do nothing, because there *are* no > OPTIONS. When it's appropriate, I use it. When it's not, I don't. So, more or less you suggest to leave it in the chaotic situation it is now. Sorry but i disagree. Sideris Michael.