Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:28:25 +0200
From:      Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>
To:        Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com>
Cc:        hetzels@westbend.net, jeh@FreeBSD.ORG, sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, joseph@randomnetworks.com, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/www Makefile ports/www/frontpage-es  Makefiledistinfo pkg-comment
Message-ID:  <20020103222825.A32137@mithrandr.moria.org>
In-Reply-To: <200201031632.g03GWhf49137@aldan.algebra.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:32:40AM -0500
References:  <20020103120225.A29560@mithrandr.moria.org> <200201031632.g03GWhf49137@aldan.algebra.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu 2002-01-03 (11:32), Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> On  3 Jan, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
> > But  ghostscript, I  imagine, doesn't  support being  built once,  and
> > having  stuff added  on  later,  so it's  not  a  target. But  luckily
> > someone  was clever  and  removed  the X  dependency  when making  the
> > ghostscript-nox11 port. Yay, now I  can use ghostscript on my machines
> > out of the box from the package!
> 
> There are  about 170 more  optional parts  of the ghostscript  port. For
> consistency, we need  to have a pre-built package  for every combination
> (only 2^170)...

It really depends how big the options are, and what dependencies they
pull in.  If at all possible all the non-dependency options that don't
increase the package size by more than 100k should be enabled in the
package.  That way, you don't need 170 packages, you just need the X
version, and the non-X version.  There's no reason to regenerate a
ghostscript package for each combination, there's no loss in providing
all the options enabled (in this case).

The frontpage-locale packages are different - they aren't the same bit
of functionality customised to one language.  They simply add (like
mod_php4_mysql and mod_php4_postgresql from my example) capability to
the existing package, and they don't conflict with each other.

We should follow the example set by the kings of package management
(that'd be Debian) and carry on doing the frontpage-ar, frontpage-de,
&c.  Each package is half a meg (it seems), so it makes sense not to
bundle them all together in one big multi-megabyte package.

Your only argument seems to be that it looks ugly having multiple ports
in the www/ directory with those names.  It really doesn't harm us in
any other way.  The only way to "fix" it is to be able to generate
packages in one of the frontpage directories for them all individually.
Whether that's via multiple-packages-from-one-port or
packages-from-subdir-port, who knows?  Since you're suggesting it, it's
really up to you how you have it implemented.  Having implemented the
former, I can tell you it has advantages and disadvantages, and I know
the file overhead of the latter will probably irritate people a lot.

> > (This would  be a joking  reminder that  people disagree with  you and
> > don't use  FreeBSD the _exact_ _same_  _way_ as you, and  that's not a
> > problem,  and thus  we  should try  to accomodate  people  as much  as
> > possible.)
> 
> I agree. We just disagree on how much IS possible...

In general, moderation is the aim.  We don't generate multiple
ghostscript packages that differ only by single options that don't
really add much size and don't add any dependencies.  But we do
ghostscript-with-x11 and ghostscript-without-x11, since that's practical
and useful enough to most people.  If anything, I think ghostscript
should just enable all the options if it doesn't increase the size or
usage noticably.

Also, we generally let people who do the work decide how they do it if
it's not broken or otherwise provably incorrect.  I'm pretty sure
there's no "provably" incorrectness in Scot's method, either by the
ports not working, masses of complaints from users, or conflict with the
porters handbook, I see no reason to discuss it further.

However, if you're interested in building a solution to whatever problem
you perceive, please start a new discussion with a new Subject line,
without the References: or In-Reply-To: headers referring to this
discussion.

Neil
-- 
Neil Blakey-Milner
nbm@mithrandr.moria.org

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020103222825.A32137>