Date: 25 Sep 2000 02:39:39 +0900 From: CHOI Junho <cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org> To: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/21504: New port: korean/tin Message-ID: <86d7htofj8.fsf@gnomaniac.myhome> In-Reply-To: "Michael C . Wu"'s message of "Sun, 24 Sep 2000 04:05:51 -0500" References: <200009240200.TAA12890@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000924040550.A8771@peorth.iteration.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "MCW" == Michael C Wu <keichii@iteration.net> writes:
> I think chinese/tin or korean/tin you suggested is too simple for
> making separated ports. Just install news/tin and edit configuration
> file is fine for us.
MCW> What about the people who do not know English well enough to
MCW> spend all the time doing documentation? True, most FreeBSD
MCW> users are able to read English, but it may take quite an effort
MCW> to do so. :)
MCW> Following your reasoning, there really is no need for any language
MCW> ports. After all, they are all just small patches and configurations
MCW> for the users. But, is that not what the Ports collection is? :-)
I am a maintainer of many language ports in korean category. I think,
some useful patches cannot be included in the master source will be
good, but changing just configuration is not acceptable.
Then, we can have separate ko-windowmaker, ja-windowmaker,
zh-windowmaker, etc... for just changing default fontset. Same thing
also applies many *-i18n ports. Do you want to do so? :)
My guideline is as follows:
- accept meaningful patches. It can't achieved without ports,
because patches should be applied in the _build_ stage.
- don't accept configuration patches just changing default
configuration.
we can get desired results _after_ installing binary packages(or use
ports) and editing my configuration files.
That's the difference I want to say.
> Or, please make slave ports just like chinese/mutt.
MCW> I agree that slave ports are better, but sometimes patches
MCW> just do not work with newer versions when the master port
MCW> gets updated with newer versions.
MCW> Sometimes, when newer versions of software convert to newer
MCW> standards like XIM or UTF-8, they break the patches completely.
Yes. I agree. It's my preference.
But I think we would be not too late to make non-slave language ports
after the master changed dramatically.
> To other ports developers: Can we accept localized ports doing just
> "changing default configuration to local language"?
MCW> The Ports collection has accepted that in the past. Also,
MCW> following your reasoning, we should not have apache-* ports,
MCW> nor xemacs-*/mule-* ports, because they are just configurations
MCW> varying by user. :)
Oh, these ports is different in this case because we can't get each
separated port features without _recompiling_. Can you have
apache-ipv6 after installing apache ports and editing just httpd.conf? :)
MCW> To summarize, here are some reasons to have non-slave language ports:
MCW> o Saves users time from reading English documentation
MCW> o The Ports are small patches and configurations, and a language port
MCW> follows the same reasoning.
MCW> o Newer versions of master ports may prevent the older language patches
MCW> of language ports from working. Sometimes developers are not
MCW> able to patch the software without large significant structural changes
MCW> to the software.
Yes. But I need more strict guidelines.
--
+++ Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my employers +++
CHOI Junho <cjh@FreeBSD.org> <cjh@kr.FreeBSD.org>
KFUG <http://www.kr.FreeBSD.org>; Web Data Bank <http://www.wdb.co.kr>;
FreeBSD, GNU/Linux Developer http://people.FreeBSD.org/~cjh
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86d7htofj8.fsf>