Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:43:07 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers -- CONF_FILES variable Message-ID: <CADLo83_CdnBzeTvC799SdNVsW8bqnQ6MW1vt83qHyonnf_ivKQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgn8sMH9uVv0QxA-PTkXQf9EhBF_rOCyom7qE2VxdFW3%2BA@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTikvMU2dK=aN=hFgxA8wfvUitmfbRA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinBC184bwcQ1Sfyy9xsw9usqr3SJQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=nQByFgGNP--hkA4AF04Sw95s8jw@mail.gmail.com> <4E0C5B7A.5060102@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgnkxuGcNk8O7vz0aLFBo2jLU-G%2BxaXSAS1Zvik2%2B%2BYtiw@mail.gmail.com> <4E109521.10209@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgmiLvMFiUWv3BLYd7UjxJpOH3DBAPBkT5wOL=wM2UhrGw@mail.gmail.com> <64bc4d1f59e39f71f77ced1aed64e734@etoilebsd.net> <CAF6rxgkpAWRVz5vueUfVpuZcdYzKyn0c1K9pAmNwgbOUp=TtYg@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83-h5UCO9-7=cfh6ERWHGqKzxj6J2SrfVuj5u5Nb-U1AhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxgn8sMH9uVv0QxA-PTkXQf9EhBF_rOCyom7qE2VxdFW3%2BA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14 July 2011 22:29, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: >> What bapt is talking about is that he doesn't want people to blindly >> install the .sample files from the distfile, and actually _look_ >> through them. > > This is exactly what I expect the port to be doing. I do _not_ want > the port maintainers to be touching the upstream sample conf files > unless (a) they don't conform to hier(1) or (b) FreeBSD specific > settings need to be enabled. This is exactly what I'm talking about. >> Of course, if you're changing the files at all you really shouldn't >> use the .sample format, because the .sample format comes from the >> distfile, not necessarily the port. > > There are two cases > (1) The configuration needed a FreeBSD specific change (like adding > /usr/local/bin to PATH or whatnot) then the .sample suffix should not > be changed It should-- it's not the original. > (2) The port maintainer gratuitously changed the default configuration > given by the upstream project. > In the former case the suffix should not be changed. The latter case > should not happen. You have, I'm sure seen the state of a lot of ports' hierarchies -- the idea of the Ports Collection is to integrate and make uniform (hopefully djb isn't listening) -- it IS the maintainer's job to do that. >> I think it's much politer for the users to receive a config file >> that's almost usable. > > This is where we disagree. It may make sense for some very small > projects to have the maintainer up set the configuration file. However > for most programs (such as ssmtp, portmaster, aiccu, tarsnap, etc) it > makes no sense for the maintainer of the port to making operator > decisions. You're always welcome to install from source, but the ports are there for convenience. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_CdnBzeTvC799SdNVsW8bqnQ6MW1vt83qHyonnf_ivKQ>