From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 4 18:48:41 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B935B106564A for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:48:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hugeraid.jetcafe.org (hugeraid.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.109]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0878FC12 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hugeraid.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hugeraid.jetcafe.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q54IfUow001060; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <201206041841.q54IfUow001060@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Chris Rees In-reply-to: References: <201206020012.q520CEcf057568@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120602004230.GA14487@in-addr.com> <201206040224.q542OBqk085897@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120604043233.GB32597@lonesome.com> <201206040841.q548fVHa091169@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:41:30 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Cc: Mark Linimon , FreeBSD Subject: Re: Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:48:41 -0000 Chris Rees writes: > On Jun 4, 2012 9:50 AM, "Dave Hayes" wrote: >> Mark Linimon 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.