Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:13:31 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] New framework options aka optionng Message-ID: <20120601191331.GR10094@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <20120530214803.GD85232@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <4301C0E3-3C53-46E2-B5A5-7BD120CD775F@FreeBSD.org> <4FC5F794.9050506@gmail.com> <4FC68FC0.1010707@FreeBSD.org> <CAN6yY1tp2-n1DGq6=uT2bVo-sAqP8bwYj%2BL9OG_zNKm=vpejEQ@mail.gmail.com> <4FC69352.4000702@FreeBSD.org> <20120530214803.GD85232@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 23:48:03 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:38:26PM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote: > > > > > > On 5/30/12 5:33 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > >> would only cause confusion. > > > I'll go one further and suggest that the vast majority who don't want > > > these features are building specialized systems and they know very > > > well what they are doing. A global setting for these would be > > > desirable, though, as someone building a specialized distribution for, > > > say, an embedded system, will want no docs or examples for any port. I > > > suspect it is ALMOST always an all or nothing issue, not per port. > > > -- > > for our commercial systems, we don't install man, docs, examples. > > and, I would suspect that I would be a little peeved if next time I > > recompile all the ports, I had to stop and hit 'WITHOUT_PORTDOCS, > > WITHOUT_PORTEXAMPLES' on every port. > > > > Upward compatibility folks, if at all possible. You are not guaranteed that all ports implement NOPORTDOCS, so what do you do with those? If folks really are that allergic against docs, then they need to do rm -rf /usr/local/share/doc anyway. I don't quite get why people think WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS are useful or even worth the burden they put on the porters and maintainers. > echo "OPTIONS_UNSET+= DOCS" >> /etc/make.conf > echo "NO_DIALOG=yes" >> /etc/make.conf > > having NOPORTSDOC and NOPORTEXAMPLES, KNOBS and OPTIONS has been a constant > demand by lots of users that is why I wrote it that way and merged NOPORTDOCS > and NOPORTEXAMPLES and WITHOUT_NLS btw to optionsng, I may be wrong, if that is > the case please speak loudly, saying why, what would be best what do you expect. > > Keep in mind that currently lots of ports already define OPTIONS only concerning > documentation, also note that some DOCS might bring some heavy depencies like > doxygen. That's about the only justifiable use-case IMHO. There should be a DOC_DEPENDS that pulls in ports necessary for building documentation (if required) and perhaps (perhaps!) a knob to not pull that in and install documentation. A better solution, saving hundreds of cpu-hours world-wide, would be to persuade upstream to include fully rendered documentation (HOW HARD CAN IT BE?). The fall-back could be to have the maintainer provide the set of documentation. It will usually not change between distfile releases, so re-rolling the documentation could be part of the port update that the maintainer does. > Last but not least, by chance (for once I'm happy with chance :)) you do not > have to add DOCS or EXAMPLES to OPTIONS_DEFINE to be able to use them in your > ports! So you can use it just like NOPORTDOCS and NOPORTEXAMPLES use to work. > IE without and make config needed. > > that mean a single way to define/check for it but 2 different kind of options. > > Not sure this mail is clear :) I hate WITHOUT_NLS and NO_PORTDOCS with a passion. They work for 80% of the ports you are likely to install, so they are not a safe way to escape docs or NLS. Why bother? Seriously, could someone give me a usecase for them? Cheers, Uli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120601191331.GR10094>