From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 2 17:31:51 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAE737B401; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from procyon.firepipe.net (procyon.firepipe.net [198.78.66.151]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0310043F85; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@csociety.org) Received: by procyon.firepipe.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1394722B54; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:31:51 -0700 From: Will Andrews To: Wesley Morgan Message-ID: <20030603003150.GF81874@procyon.firepipe.net> Mail-Followup-To: Wesley Morgan , ports@freebsd.org, kde@freebsd.org References: <20030602231303.GA28072@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030602233551.GC81874@procyon.firepipe.net> <20030602194350.O2676@volatile.chemikals.org> <20030602235744.GD81874@procyon.firepipe.net> <20030602195937.V2676@volatile.chemikals.org> <20030603000915.GE81874@procyon.firepipe.net> <20030602201400.C5799@volatile.chemikals.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030602201400.C5799@volatile.chemikals.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: kde@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] Re: HEADS UP: Big change to x11/kde3 (Read carefully!) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:31:51 -0000 On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 08:19:14PM -0400, Wesley Morgan wrote: > I lost knowing that by installing x11/kde3 I was stuck with only ONE port > I did not want. Now I have to deal with remembering ALL the ports (I > always forget artsd, it doesnt associate itself with KDE very well) or > deal with at least 6 ports I don't want. I don't use 'portupgrade' for By definition, since you're so picky about what you like installed, you're a power user that knows better and can feel free to install exactly what's desired. > everything. Believe it or not, the ports system is still designed to work > with 'make', and asking me to forsake that for portupgrade is irritating. You're absolutely right. The sad fact of the matter is, however, that there are still nasty bugs in FreeBSD ports that the make code doesn't handle. And there are missing features. And so on. Fixing these problems is something I and several other people are working on, but really, portupgrade is the way to go right now. Maybe in a year or so, it can go away. But right now it's the best way to use the ports tree. You'll waste lots of time (and not just your own) not using it. And, by the way, "make" sucks. Believe me. > I was offering my *opinion* that more flexible dependencies would be nice. > The ports system is quite capable of dealing with it. Sure, but you want them delivered a specific way that involves more code, and can possibly lead to confusing or misleading bug reports. Though we could ask everyone that installed the meta port what their WANT_KDE variable in /etc/make.conf is, when/if they submit a bug report.. > What I was NOT expecting was to be flamed for not agreeing with the port > maintainers. Your definition of a "flame" is a lot more sensitive than mine. No one called anyone else an idiot or anything like that, so as far as I'm concerned this is a peaceful bikeshed. Regards, -- wca