Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 23:27:06 -0700 (PDT) From: R Joseph Wright <rjoseph@mammalia.org> To: Derrick Baumer <bduk@earthlink.net> Cc: dhesi@rahul.net, freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: stop complaining about x11 please (was: Re: Why does PORTS SUCK so BADLY!?) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005012223500.9851-100000@manatee.mammalia.org> In-Reply-To: <200005020949.CAA18177@earthlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Derrick Baumer wrote: > > > From: R Joseph Wright <rjoseph@manatee.mammalia.org> > > > > On Mon, 1 May 2000, Rahul Dhesi wrote: > > > > > Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> writes: > > > > > > I know that time is a luxury, which is why I have the 5-minute solution > > > for you and for every other ports mainteriner. > > > > > > Add a section to the Makefile that goes something like this: > > > > > > ## DEPENDENCIES > > > ## This ports depends on xxx, yyy, zzz. > > > ## xxx is used for <purpose>. It's not essential. Default is off. > > > ## To enable xxx, uncomment the next line. > > > #<symbol> = <rhs> > > > ## yyy is used for <purpose>. This is quite important and should > > > ## be left in. However, the port will build without it. Default is on. > > > ## To disable yyy, comment out the next line. > > > <symbol> = <rhs> > > > ## zzz is essential and must not be removed. > > > <symbol> = <rhs> > > > ## END DEPENDENCIES > > > > Even better, but more difficult to implement, would be a little ncurses > > dialog box that pops up after the person building the port enters > > "make". Some ports already have this, offhand I can name ghostscript and > > rsaref. It makes things easier for the person who doesn't know they can > > alter the makefiles or doesn't feel comfortable doing so. > > Yeah! Or even *BETTER*, it could have a graphical dialog and you > could just press "next" and select a couple of radio buttons or such, > then hit "next" again, and when it's all done, just hit "finish"! > It could be completely SIMPLE! Everything could be stored in a > central "registry" file - all of your preferences for every program, > all of the file locations and such, and the entire system would be > entirely, absolutely, automatically FOOLPROOF! :) Need some more grease on that slippery slope? > If that sounds good to you, you've got the wrong operating system. > The reason I'm using FreeBSD is because I can crawl under the hood and > put it together myself. Everybody is asking for mp3 players and games > and gimme this and why isn't that bell/whistle more pretty and I > really don't understand why you don't just reboot into the operating > system that gives you all of that? It's funny how many people want to > be "alternative" but can't understand why the alternative isn't > identical to the original. I'm not saying it has to be pretty, nor am I saying things should be hidden so that you can no longer crawl under the hood. But, the whole point of the ports collection is to make things easy. So why are you using the ports? Wouldn't you be happier compiling everything by hand? Not everyone who builds a port wants to draw in every other port along with it. The Sawmill window manager port, for example, installs Gnome by default! If a port has options, it is IMO a good thing when they are "out there" and not hidden in the makefiles. I was merely making one suggestion, and not necessarily the best, of how that can be accomplished. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005012223500.9851-100000>