From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 10 18:43:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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 A2FD916A547 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 18:43:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D0F43D46 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 18:43:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FdteW-0003Z8-5l for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 20:43:16 +0200 Received: from r5j60.chello.upc.cz ([86.49.9.60]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 20:43:16 +0200 Received: from martinkov by r5j60.chello.upc.cz with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 20:43:16 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: martinko Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:43:05 +0200 Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <20060508205703.GA11215@daemons.gr> <200605082120.k48LKxSi006193@peedub.jennejohn.org> <20060508213035.GA73976@daemons.gr> <0IYY001DYWNE9C51@VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: r5j60.chello.upc.cz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.0.2) Gecko/20060506 SeaMonkey/1.0.1 In-Reply-To: <0IYY001DYWNE9C51@VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> Sender: news Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:43:36 -0000 Serge Gagnon wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 9 May 2006, "Sideris" == Sideris Michael wrote: > > Sideris> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:20:59PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > +> Sideris Michael writes: > > +> > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:47:51PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: No > +> > > one is taking away any rights. > > +> > Of course. That's why every ports should have a configuration panel. > > +> Wrong. I do not intend to convert any of my ports to use OPTIONS so > +> don't bother sending me patches. Many ports are so simple that adding a > +> configuration panel would be totally unnnecessary and ridiculous. > > Sideris> So, if you have 10 of this ports as dependencies, you prefer go > Sideris> seperately to each port directory and search through the Makefile > Sideris> to find what KNOBS it provides. Nice. > > For my part, as an average user, it's "yes". > I'm used to > cd ${PORTSDIR}/foo/bar > grep WITH Makefile > more Makefile > /DEPEND > and I have absolutly no problem with this. yes, you're right. it's not so difficult. but only if you talk about one port. now imagine a few more of them. and things get worse.. another example -- a few days ago i deleted all the installed packages and started from scratch. mind you right now i've got 375 packages. that's quite a lot. but i can imagine many people have even more. now imagine how you're going to configure them all. with options you're asked once, you cannot miss them and they saved for later use. and they're especially useful when a port has many dependencies. not speaking of metaports. and, as already said, portupgrade doesn't handle this very well. also editing makefile in conditional way is not good. > > I'm also used to work with dumb terminal (9term) and I don't like ports > that stop because it cannot display its blue OPTIONS panel (eg: > ghostscript).