Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:41:30 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? Message-ID: <201206041841.q54IfUow001060@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-9jE1zAtdXrA78=K5AE7yR4UsMh=efeC5L4kXijaDFaQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOgwaMvsv3e1TxDauV038Pp7LRiYeH7oAODE%2Bw-pxHt9oGrXMA@mail.gmail.com> <201206020012.q520CEcf057568@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120602004230.GA14487@in-addr.com> <201206040224.q542OBqk085897@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120604043233.GB32597@lonesome.com> <201206040841.q548fVHa091169@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <CADLo83-9jE1zAtdXrA78=K5AE7yR4UsMh=efeC5L4kXijaDFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jun 4, 2012 9:50 AM, "Dave Hayes" <dave@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> writes:
>> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 07:24:11PM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
>> >> I see features and pkgng and things being offered up as solutions...
>> >> these are all well and good, but in my opinion more comprehensive
>> >> documentation and support in these areas would do more good than pkgng.
>> > IMHO pkgng and optionsng are necessary, but not sufficient, to solve
>> > our current problems.
>> Optionsng is nice, but lacking in documentation. Is it too much to ask
>> port maintainers to write a bit more documentation on the options they
>> are providing?
> Where are you looking? I updated the Porter's Handbook- is there something
> missing?
Yes there is...my point. :) Perhaps I was unclear. Optionsng is likely a
fine project. However, it does not include the idea of extra
documentation on the user selectable options provided to a port.
Often when building a port I am presented with a list of build options.
For example, virtualbox has this:
OPTIONS= QT4 "Build with QT4 Frontend" on \
DEBUG "Build with debugging symbols" off \
GUESTADDITIONS "Build with Guest Additions" off \
DBUS "Build with D-Bus and HAL support" on \
PULSEAUDIO "Build with PulseAudio" off \
X11 "Build with X11 support" on \
UDPTUNNEL "Build with UDP tunnel support" on \
VDE "Build with VDE support" off \
VNC "Build with VNC support" off \
WEBSERVICE "Build Webservice" off \
NLS "Native language support" on
What I feel is missing from ports is the information that would allow me
to make intelligent decisions about each option. To see what's missing,
consider the following questions:
- Why would I want pulseaudio in a hypervisor?
- What, exactly, are guestadditions and why would I want them?
- Why does this need dbus and hal?
- What is VDE?
- What webservice?
etc.
The porter's handbook is fine if you are writing ports. It's using them
that can get opaque. There's meta topics also, these would be great to
know about without having to read 200 mail messages:
- Some people do not like pulseaudio for good technical reasons.
What are those? What are the non-technical opinion based reasons?
- What are the common objections to HAL and DBUS?
It's this kind of attention to communication that I think FreeBSD, in
any attempt to reach more users, needs to strongly consider.
--
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Treat people as if they are what they ought to be, and you
help them to become what they are capable of being.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206041841.q54IfUow001060>