From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 21 16:29:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C603C46 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 150172FEB for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x3so4592952qcv.38 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:29:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O+dB8T8dirdENQiAUYeQ0fjEKgqdTlyeBzIXtsZTH5E=; b=QDr9n1lkz7LXK/FoCRiguz9IfazdrRGNBvA6nhlKZVXvJkLW7JYlT86AuWfDn6rniB Po++wHi2ErzG3msp87Ei9boyDjFPMdzs1DxBFx3m5F4uXdsfNnGKH9GdrlWSMjmLKZ19 pLLbtZH8DmFGtNb41oAD2s+veFnEe5fVMv3T8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=O+dB8T8dirdENQiAUYeQ0fjEKgqdTlyeBzIXtsZTH5E=; b=URrSyyZXph6GZlafchsstMZftLtL20MPEkHJCY6yDviZok8dKXaiO7wAgV1VTO5Ak8 rBhtKwzC9F2NBUksDlNg2qjKMzI3pSALxpHuDx99N0E1VB23x/60kaSdW3O6sHkzMGB0 G3qoB/14HzABDYyT4wsZCYP1CBiD2ghbtL5uQwxf2Q30wIVK/Kj9YsNnTKjz9KCxZrod hnF3H7v3h1HNfJ8FRft7G30OnoD31YOhNXUdwq3Iu33mLUN+ybBdCKhyNxbD9Pmb5KPM y/Bf45lw3r+PtXpFLw9dbyyv28PMp4y/oEqM33/XV8z6orH6K0g+03Wdua5xJi5Yk81V KCiw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk+o4FNR2LqjOx1RXWoy/Kx/Z/zos8ovd+iBgt96ZrA6ImM/5Z6Jdh9W9/Oy6Jq9ogK4C8E X-Received: by 10.229.79.2 with SMTP id n2mr16262191qck.11.1403368175224; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:29:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lists@eitanadler.com Received: by 10.96.222.131 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org> References: <201406211423.s5LENFt4010937@svn.freebsd.org> <3AC42E34-C633-4797-9539-D57676A19E62@adamw.org> From: Eitan Adler Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 09:29:05 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6mxVKACigzY4hb3eA7jVuUB59SE Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r358704 - head/Mk To: Adam Weinberger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger , ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:29:36 -0000 On 21 June 2014 09:17, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 21 Jun, 2014, at 11:57, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> On 21 June 2014 07:23, Adam Weinberger 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