Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:51:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Rehbein <tobias.rehbein@web.de> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Thomas Abthorpe <tabthorpe@freebsd.org>, Rene Ladan <rene@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/stonesoup Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist ports/games/stonesoup/files patch-AppHdr.h patch-makefile patch-rltiles__Makefile Message-ID: <411491949.2171447.1281340285305.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb078> In-Reply-To: <20100809065834.GA20006@FreeBSD.org> References: <201008081759.o78Hxath039177@repoman.freebsd.org> <20100808193035.GB26232@FreeBSD.org> <4C5F0768.10004@freebsd.org> <4C5F1173.5000803@FreeBSD.org>, <20100809065834.GA20006@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 09.08.2010 08:58:34, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 01:20:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 08/08/2010 12:37, Rene Ladan wrote: >> > Actually there is nothing wrong with having SDL support in OPTIONS, I >> > merely followed the PR. If you can convince the maintainer to revert >> > factoring out SDL support, I'll be happy to make the corresponding commit. >> >> Personally I think we need a lot more slave ports. OPTIONS are great for >> people building the ports themselves, but if we're going to move to a >> model dominated by packages then more slave ports are a good thing. > >Slave ports can be good enough solution in certain cases (particularly, >when slave ports itself carries enough logic inside its Makefile), but >most of the time they just alter some knobs in the master, hardly more. >Just having ability to specify non-default WITH_FOO at the expense of new >directory, new Makefile with a dozen lines *irrelevant* to WITH_FOO, >extra line in ../Makefile and modules -- it looks ugly even for one >port, yet you say "we need a lot more slave ports". As the submitter of the offending PR (I wasn't aware how big the can of worms this PR opens is) I feel obliged to give a short rationale why I wanted to factor out SDL support in a slave port of it's own. Mainly I am with dougb@ here: I think it's a good thing to have multiple packages for one port available if the packages are distinctive enough and they have a merit for the user of the port. Having said this it would never come to mind to create a slave port for wizard mode (which is a debugging and developer tool) or sound support (which is a very experimental feature including security risks - not to mention it's not working the way most people would expect it to). For SDL support it's different. stonesoup is a traditional roguelike game featuring a traditional tty interface. But stonesoup also offers a fancy SDL based interface including nice graphics, simple gfx, mouse control etc and therefore feels like a completely different game. I feel stonesoup-sdl is way more distinctive from stonesoup than, for example, nethack-nox11 is to nethack but YMMV. I think you are right that slave ports are basically a clumsy work-around for a deficiencies in the ports infrastructure - but port maintainers have to use the tools at hand ;) Having said all this I guess it would be a good idea if portmgr@ would create a guideline what kind of slave ports are wanted and what are not wanted. For me it is ok to delete stonesoup-sdl from the ports tree and put SDL back in OPTIONS - although I have the strong feeling that the existence stonesoup-sdl is warranted. Regards Tobias ___________________________________________________________ Neu: WEB.DE De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief! Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: https://produkte.web.de/go/demail02
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?411491949.2171447.1281340285305.JavaMail.fmail>