From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 3 01:39:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D0A16A4CE for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 01:39:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.liwing.de (mail.liwing.de [213.70.188.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EBD43FA3 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 01:39:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rehsack@liwing.de) Received: (qmail 7173 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2003 09:39:50 -0000 Received: from stingray.liwing.de (HELO liwing.de) ([213.70.188.164]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.liwing.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Nov 2003 09:39:50 -0000 Message-ID: <3FA62265.5000203@liwing.de> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:39:49 +0000 From: Jens Rehsack User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031102 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <200311021927.hA2JRIt2074978@freefall.freebsd.org> <1067833233.258.10.camel@localhost> <20031103045730.GV96543@toxic.magnesium.net> <1067843548.3865.17.camel@localhost> <20031103103238.73172852.Alexander@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20031103103238.73172852.Alexander@Leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/58840: [PATCH] exclude possiblyunrequireddependenciesfrom x11/gnome2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:39:52 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:26:31 -0600 > Jeremy Messenger wrote: > > >>>While I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. Not everything >>>needs to be installed. Why things like gnomemeeting should be installed >>>puzzles me. There should be an *easy* way for users to opt out of >>>unneccessary things. >> >>Easy answer for gnomemeeting, because it's part of Gnome. Check at >>www.gnome.org . > > > PHP also has some default options and some additional possibilities. > While PHP isn't a meta package which pulls in "real" packages, it's "a > port" like the gnome-meta-port. I don't understand why we aren't allowed > to add features to it (with the actual behavior as the default). I'm a > ports committer and know how to handle this situation locally, but I > don't understand why we aren't allowed to give users without knowledge > about the internals of the ports collection user-friendly knobs. > > >>>Plenty of other ports take advantage of WITH_* and/or WITHOUT_* options >>>to let users finetune their ports without forcing them to write their >>>own Makefiles. Why not x11/gnome2? >> >>I believe, Joe and Adam have answered it. :-) > > > I don't know of a rule "meta-ports aren't allowed to have options", so > could someone please try to explain to me, why we cant offer a "I want a > different version of gnome"-feature to people which lack the expertise > to do it on their own? > > I don't want to push this change into the tree, but I think it would be > a good idea to have it. The sole reason of this mail is to understand > the reasoning of the rejection. As far I understood, x11/gnome2 and x11/gnome2-fifth-toe are ports as specified by the Gnome team. So the ports installed by this port are defined by specification. Maybe a good idea would be add a port gnome2-customizable (or so), which can be customized as we (the freebsd users and port maintainers) want to do. Any corrections to my understanding gladly desired. Regards, Jens