Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:41:43 +0300 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Suggested improvements for ports Message-ID: <86483352@bb.ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <ED8842DFA28376008F3CA3A4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> (Paul Schmehl's message of "Fri\, 11 Jan 2008 09\:29\:14 -0600") References: <ED8842DFA28376008F3CA3A4@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:29:14 -0600 Paul Schmehl wrote: Seems that some answers (well, maybe some not obvious, some lack examples, etc.) are already at the Porters Handbook: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/index.html > Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list > conversation, I came up with this list of suggested improvements for > port. I'd like to see these things done, but I'm not sure how. > Improve the docs? Create a checklist? > 1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the config for the > options that you want. So, when you select sasl in postfix, you never > get the chance to check the saslauthd option, for example. > 2) There's no standard for some of the details of port building. So, > it's entirely up to the port maintainer and the committer to decide > how to build the port. The postfix port maintainer *could* include a > dependency for saslauthd. He chose not to. He *could* include a note > in pkg-message that warns you that saslauthd needs to be installed as > well. He chose not to. His choices are both reasonable and > customary, but they don't serve the customer well. I'd say that there is a way to handle this one: PR. Post a PR with patches to a current port. If maintainer abandoned the patches you may file a PR to create a new port (ex. a slave one) which you will maintain. > 3) There's no standard for the format of pkg-plist, pkg-message or > pkg-descr, so port maintainers are free to put whatever they want in > there. There's a customary way of doing it, but it's not set in stone > and variations are found throughout ports. At those cases which needs standartization (i.e. http section at pkg-descr) it exists. And I don't see much harm if the rest is not standarized. Can you show an examples when it hurts? > 4) There's no standard for config files. Do you overwrite? Do you > ignore? Do you create port.conf-sample? port.conf-dist? > port.conf-example? Do you check to see if port.conf is there, and, if > not, copy it to ${LOCALBASE}/etc? ${PREFIX}/etc? > 5) There's no standard for pkg-plist. When is it required? When is > it not? (IOW, what's the maximum number of files you can put in > Makefile so you don't have to create a pkg-plist? Do you use unexec > always? Or only when you want/decide to? Do you just ignore the conf > file and not uninstall it? > I don't know the right answer to these questions, but I think they > need to be answered. I'm willing to volunteer to do some work if > someone will tell me what that work is. Docs? A committee? The best way is to enhance the Porters Handbook. Take a topic, create patches, send them to the list, discuss and then send a PR with patches. That would be great. BTW, thanks for taking care of it. > Suggestions welcomed. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86483352>