From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Jan 3 13:24:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from aldan.algebra.com (aldan.algebra.com [216.254.65.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2A437B416; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:24:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from aldan.algebra.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aldan.algebra.com (8.11.6/8.11.5) with ESMTP id g03LOBf54171; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:24:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mi@aldan.algebra.com) Message-Id: <200201032124.g03LOBf54171@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:24:08 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin Subject: Re: Multiple packages from one port To: petef@databits.net Cc: hetzels@westbend.net, jeh@FreeBSD.ORG, joseph@randomnetworks.com, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nbm@mithrandr.moria.org In-Reply-To: <20011229120106.B53652@databits.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 29 Dec, Pete Fritchman wrote: > [ cc: trimmed] > > ++ 29/12/01 11:44 -0500 - Mikhail Teterin: > | Makes sense. If only we weren't so fixated on the pre-built > | packages, there'd be nothing to talk about. > > Ports are about building packages. No, ports are about letting our users build software locally. Packages are simply the next step... > I would guess that a majority of our users tend to use packages... Do you have any numbers? I don't... > I've introduced about 10 of my friends to FreeBSD in the past few > months, all of them being fairly unix illiterate. They all *love* > packages. I can't get them to touch ports -- they think it's too > complicated. Perhaps, you are not explaining it to them well enough?.. Why is cd /usr/ports/whatever/you-want make install clean any more complicated, than cd /cdrom/ports/packages/All pkg_add you-want.tgz > | > The frontpage- ports are not slave ports of frontpage port. > | > They are slave ports to the first FrontPage Web Admin port > | > (www/frontpage-ar). > | > | Ok, thanks. Pardon my ignorance. What I really meant to say, is they > | should all be made into one port -- with options, just like > | kde2-i18n (or php, or ghostscript). Unless, of course, we are in a > | race to hit a certain port-number growth target :-) > > I agree with you -- they *should*. This would be ideal. > Instead of fighting over frontpage ports, let's brainstorm and try to > come up with something useful to build multiple packages from one port > -- this would be a great feature. As I indicated before, I personally am not very interested in packages. The reason I started (and continue on) this thread, is because the many frontpage-?? ports once again underscore a troublesome trend -- useless ports are added to the system _purely_ for the sake of having pre-built packages. IMHO, bento and packages are outside of the ports domain, and the integrity of the ports system should not be sacrificed for them. On 3 Jan, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > 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. The problem I perceive is very simple to solve. Put all the frontpage-?? ports into one with a dialog(1) based configure. After that, whoever has a problem with frontpage-?? packages not available as part of the FreeBSD distribution is welcome to follow Neil's suggestion quoted above. -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message