Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:47:46 +0200 From: martinko <martinkov@pobox.sk> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <e3tn23$l6i$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <0IZ2000IVDQ5UB80@VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca> References: <20060508205703.GA11215@daemons.gr> <200605082120.k48LKxSi006193@peedub.jennejohn.org> <20060508213035.GA73976@daemons.gr> <0IYY001DYWNE9C51@VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> <e3tc7q$d7o$1@sea.gmane.org> <0IZ2000IVDQ5UB80@VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Serge Gagnon wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 10 May 2006, "martinko" == martinko wrote: > ... > > martinko> yes, you're right. it's not so difficult. but only if you talk > martinko> about one port. now imagine a few more of them. and things get > martinko> worse.. another example -- a few days ago i deleted all the > martinko> installed packages and started from scratch. mind you right now > martinko> i've got 375 packages. that's quite a lot. but i can imagine > martinko> many people have even more. now imagine how you're going to > martinko> configure them all. with options you're asked once, you cannot > martinko> miss them and they saved for later use. and they're especially > martinko> useful when a port has many dependencies. not speaking of > martinko> metaports. and, as already said, portupgrade doesn't handle this > martinko> very well. also editing makefile in conditional way is not good. > > Just my point of view but, you don't have know or set all the dependency's > KNOB. Eg: print/apsfilter need shells/bash for its own purpose. If you're > not running this shell as login shell, you don't want to know or set to > build it static or not. > I think that it can be fastidious to set all these options the first time > you're building your ports. > As an exemple, imagine you're installing your ports tree for the first time > and then go to x11/kde !! > > Secondo, I think that most of the users know approximatly what this or that > port do and if they have to modify their build with WITH/WITHOUT or not. > Just my point of view again. yes, you're basically right. fiddling with too many options at one time scares me, too. :) on the other hand, it's not that users wouldn't know what their ports are about. it's that they wouldn't know of switches that might be available for them. and no, i wouldn't agree with "if you don't know about it, you don't need it". ;-) > > However, if such a system will be put in place, I think that the idea of > asking the user once and at the beginning of the build processe is a good > one. I like to start a big build then go to sleep and not thinking that my > station is, perhaps, asking me something or not. > > I'm just scared about the fact that I can't imagine myself answering a > listing of one miles long before building a port even if it's just one time > at the beginning and that these options will be saved. And asking again to > this same listing if I want to change these options. you always can define a batch mode and you won't be prompted, defaults will be used. > > However, I saw something on this thread that it could be very cool. The > idea of one file that contain these option like > shells/rc:WITH_READLINE > ... > Very good idea if i'm not forced to fill this file with a system like I > described above. Using vi is cool ! > > IMHO, if you're not able to read a man page and use vi to modify this file > who contains the information concerning your port, you build your port as > they are with their default setting, that's all.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e3tn23$l6i$1>