Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:38:19 +0300 From: Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <20060508213819.GC73976@daemons.gr> In-Reply-To: <1147123491.18944.74.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <1147119806.18944.59.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508203709.GA32661@daemons.gr> <1147121271.18944.63.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508205703.GA11215@daemons.gr> <1147122425.18944.67.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508211417.GA16847@daemons.gr> <1147123491.18944.74.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:24:51PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Sideris Michael p??e v ?t 09. 05. 2006 v 00:14 +0300: > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:07:05PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > Sideris Michael p??e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:57 +0300: > > > > > > > > > > > modify the existing Makefiles to include the OPTIONS framework > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the goal. Please submit patches whenever you hit the old style > > > > > > > Makefile. > > > > > > > > > > > > Submit patches for all Makefiles? No way. That is why maintainers exist. It should be the > > > > > > responsibility of every maintainer. In maximum 1 week all Makefiles could be modified to > > > > > > use the OPTIONS framework. If you want by individuals, what can I say, I will have it done > > > > > > in 2 months :P Is it ok with you? Not fair I would say. > > > > > > > > > > Let's make a deal. Send an email to every maintainer, asking them nicely > > > > > to convert their ports. Let's see what will happen :) > > > > > > > > So you are telling me indirectly that the maintainers are bored to dedicate max 10' to > > > > maintain something that is their responsibility? > > > > > > Does that surprise you? > > > > Yes it does. Cause this defines an irresponsible person. And positions like these should > > not be occupied by irresponsible people. > > That's how this project works, and, so far, it looks like a success. > So it's hardly gonna change. It would be nice if it could change though. > > > > But we will indeed > > > > make a deal. You are going to apply my patches and I will never see any new ports being > > > > added without having the OPTIONS framework. > > > > > > Can't guarantee that about new ports, because, to use your line, I'm not > > > the only developer. But I will pursue any patches that convert ports to > > > OPTIONS. > > > > So, can't there be a standard for Makefiles and enforce ALL people to use the OPTIONS framework? > > We could define a policy about using OPTIONS instead of old style > tunables, but that will not convert existing ports automagically. > > Also, I'd like to see all the known bugs in OPTIONS fixed, before we > impose it on all the people. Of course they are not going to convert automagically, but if people are never willing to convert them, then they will never convert. Sideris Michael.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060508213819.GC73976>