From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 21 09:20:12 2005 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 0F7F916A4CE; Sat, 21 May 2005 09:20:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5588643D5F; Sat, 21 May 2005 09:20:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id DD96E140AB; Sat, 21 May 2005 04:20:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 04:20:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: "Conrad J. Sabatier" In-Reply-To: <20050520160010.1c9c3ebe@dolphin.local.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: Ade Lovett Subject: Re: Disabling dependency on esound in ports builds 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: Sat, 21 May 2005 09:20:12 -0000 On Fri, 20 May 2005, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > I really don't know what to suggest, or where such a discussion might > lead if we were to pursue it again, but it certainly does seem that > there's ample opportunity for some major cleaning up in the area of port > dependencies. The current approach just seems rather heavy-handed, if > you ask me. There should be some facility for a more fine-tuned > approach, leaning more in the direction of "when in doubt, leave it > out", rather than the current "throw it in just to be sure" methodology. All it requires is the mythical Someone who has lots of time to run regression tests on a cleaned-up ports tree. I recommend Joe Marcus' tinderbox scripts as an appropriate building block. mcl