Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:29:05 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r358704 - head/Mk Message-ID: <CAF6rxgkhehP=sP9s8W9PtR_m-rQ3UwHZEayqXXXcEb0eVmJPLQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org> References: <201406211423.s5LENFt4010937@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgmCpgvW7w20Y7sfL5%2B2hDWU=C4OpidV0_AjzndYcBvaTA@mail.gmail.com> <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 June 2014 09:17, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: > On 21 Jun, 2014, at 11:57, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On 21 June 2014 07:23, Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> -GHOSTSCRIPT_DESC?=3D Ghostscript PDF support >>> +GHOSTSCRIPT_DESC?=3D Ghostscript support >> >> This description is now meaningless. Can you propose a better alternati= ve? > > It=E2=80=99s probably better to be vague and meaningless than wrong. Just to note: it is perfectly fine to have a specific description which is correct for most cases but wrong for some. The description can be overridden by ports locally. > Someone will think of a more accurate descriptor, but in the meantime it= =E2=80=99s better not to have an inaccurate one. Alright. >>> -LDAP_DESC?=3D LDAP authentication support >>> +LDAP_DESC?=3D LDAP protocol support >> >> What functionality might i gain or lose if I turn this on/off? LDAP >> should likely not be a shared description at all. > > Sure it should. Tons of ports have LDAP support. The question is not "do many ports have LDAP support" but "do many ports provide the same functionality when enabling LDAP" or "Can most ports describe LDAP support in a similar way that goes beyond just 'LDAP support'"? > This feels a bit like pedantry, as =E2=80=9CKerberos support=E2=80=9D and= =E2=80=9CGopher protocol support=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CUnicode support=E2= =80=9D are no more or less useful, though people who need them will know to= enable them. I didn't like "Gopher protocol support" either but couldn't think of something better. =E2=80=9CUnicode support=E2=80=9D is very bad and it provides absolutely no= context as to what functionality will be gained when turning it on. --=20 Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgkhehP=sP9s8W9PtR_m-rQ3UwHZEayqXXXcEb0eVmJPLQ>