From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 23:26:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F1E16A4CE for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from lakemtao08.cox.net (lakemtao08.cox.net [68.1.17.113]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6DB43FB1 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:26:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from mezz.mezzweb.com ([68.103.32.11]) by lakemtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031103072654.EIFS22544.lakemtao08.cox.net@mezz.mezzweb.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 02:26:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:26:31 -0600 To: James Pole References: <200311021927.hA2JRIt2074978@freefall.freebsd.org> <1067833233.258.10.camel@localhost> <20031103045730.GV96543@toxic.magnesium.net> <1067843548.3865.17.camel@localhost> From: Jeremy Messenger Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1067843548.3865.17.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Opera7.21/Linux M2 build 480 cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/58840: [PATCH] exclude possibly unrequireddependenciesfrom x11/gnome2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 07:26:57 -0000 On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:12:28 +1300, James Pole wrote: > On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 17:57, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> The reason that these programs are part of x11/gnome2 and not >> x11/gnome2-fifth-toe is that, at any point, the GNOME project could >> start releasing software that assumes that any and all parts of the >> GNOME desktop/development system are installed. > > We have a ports system that automatically works out the dependicies for > all the applications in the port collection. If a port requires all the > features it needs to specify all the features it needs otherwise its a > broken port. > > While I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. Not everything > needs to be installed. Why things like gnomemeeting should be installed > puzzles me. There should be an *easy* way for users to opt out of > unneccessary things. Easy answer for gnomemeeting, because it's part of Gnome. Check at www.gnome.org . > Plenty of other ports take advantage of WITH_* and/or WITHOUT_* options > to let users finetune their ports without forcing them to write their > own Makefiles. Why not x11/gnome2? I believe, Joe and Adam have answered it. :-) > Just because the GNOME project says this or that should be the default, > doesn't mean that we should not allow users to specify what they don't > want from the default options. Then, don't install x11/gnome2 and choice the port of apps what you want to install or even better create your own meta-port. Gnome2 is full of feature desktop with all packages. I won't object if you want to create a new port of something like x11/gnome2-choice, x11/gnome2-lite or some better word. Cheers, Mezz > - James -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.