Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:12:28 +1300 From: James Pole <james@pole.net.nz> To: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/58840: [PATCH] exclude possibly unrequireddependenciesfrom x11/gnome2 Message-ID: <1067843548.3865.17.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20031103045730.GV96543@toxic.magnesium.net> References: <200311021927.hA2JRIt2074978@freefall.freebsd.org> <1067833233.258.10.camel@localhost> <20031103045730.GV96543@toxic.magnesium.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 17:57, Adam Weinberger wrote: > The reason that these programs are part of x11/gnome2 and not > x11/gnome2-fifth-toe is that, at any point, the GNOME project could > start releasing software that assumes that any and all parts of the > GNOME desktop/development system are installed. We have a ports system that automatically works out the dependicies for all the applications in the port collection. If a port requires all the features it needs to specify all the features it needs otherwise its a broken port. While I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. Not everything needs to be installed. Why things like gnomemeeting should be installed puzzles me. There should be an *easy* way for users to opt out of unneccessary things. Plenty of other ports take advantage of WITH_* and/or WITHOUT_* options to let users finetune their ports without forcing them to write their own Makefiles. Why not x11/gnome2? Just because the GNOME project says this or that should be the default, doesn't mean that we should not allow users to specify what they don't want from the default options. - James
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1067843548.3865.17.camel>