From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 4 19:39:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F395106566B for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:39:33 +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 5E1E58FC1A for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:39:33 +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 q54JWONA001600; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <201206041932.q54JWONA001600@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Chris Nehren In-reply-to: <20120604191343.GF10783@isuckatdomains.isuckatdomains.net> 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> <201206041841.q54IfUow001060@hugeraid.jetcafe.org> <20120604191343.GF10783@isuckatdomains.isuckatdomains.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:32:24 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 19:39:33 -0000 Chris Nehren writes: > The descriptions of the options assume the admin is familiar with the > software they're installing. I do not think it is the FreeBSD Project's > purview to document every option for every port. At the very least it'd > take quite a lot of time and effort to document all of that. That's a fair position. Perhaps it would not be too much trouble to add this one idea to optionsng: a "more info" field on each option knob which may be filled in by a port maintainer. > Beyond this, such explanations would duplicate each port's own > documentation. Not necessarily. I don't have an example offhand, but I suspect there are a number of FreeBSD specific option knobs applied to ports. > If you're not familiar with something, you very probably shouldn't be > installing it. Basing my argument here on assumptions that FreeBSD wants more users, I would argue that the better policy is to be liberal in who you help and conservative in who you call unfamiliar. In this spirit, I can guarantee you that there are plenty of people who will install despite your requirement above, set some option that they shouldn't (or fail to set one that they should), and then come away with a bad experience. Instead, if the person familiar with the software (who is ostensibly writing the port) could spend just 5 more minutes writing a simple "this option is documented at url://..." or "dont set this if you have port foo installed" that would help a lot of people. > Show me one other similar packaging system that does this level of > handholding. The only comparable ones I can think of are portage and > macports, and they certainly don't, either. The absence of such a system isn't really relevant to the idea of improving the current one is it? :) -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989