Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 20:22:14 -0500 From: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> Cc: FreeBSD Ports Team <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: /sys/boot, egcs vs. gcc, -Os Message-ID: <199904090122.UAA52632@spawn.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904082053400.378-100000@picnic.mat.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904082053400.378-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 April 1999 at 21:07, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> wrote: [snip] > You misunderstand. It's not having two different install hierarchies > that makes it difficult, it's having ports that start in one hierarchy, > THEN CHANGE THEIR MIND. This means you can't even locate the various > crud config files that these ports drop behind them. > > Today, we'll install in /usr/X11R6. Tomorrow, let's be PC, and install > in /usr/local. Next week, we'll be even more PC-ish, and use /opt. Are > you getting the idea? No, I do understand. I guess I shall rephrase -- I don't like having X11BASE and LOCALBASE ... I would like to just have LOCALBASE. If that were the case, there would be nowhere for the ports to move :-) Without combining X11BASE and LOCALBASE, all we can do is: as ports maintainers, be concientious and ``get it right the first time'', or as users, complain about it. > If you think I'm wrong, you have to look at the archives, the ports > really did do this. I know. I agree. > > The next time that I install a > > system from scratch, I'll have everything under /opt (I use > > /usr/X11R6 and /opt right now) to see how it goes. > > Why? So I can get an idea of how necessary /usr/X11R6 really is. > John already told you, when you start from scratch, you get a > perfect install. That's why Satoshi, with his squeaky-clean chroot > environments, never sees these problems. Real users, however, go thru > tins of aspirin trying to understand why gimp won't upgrade. It takes both ... Satoshi's environment catches errors in the ports that I would never see on my machine. This is why I keep repeating ``send-pr, send-pr.'' I am lazy. I'll do what I can to make sure that a port that I maintain or touch works in as many environments as I can see, but I can't/won't try everything that real users will. [snip] > So remove ports. What's so wrong with that? Users don't lose > functionality. Go ahead and start cvs removing ports and see what the users say. Do you really think that if one removes, say, ports/audio/replay, that no one will miss it? > The ports configuration scripts also find all the old config files too, > even if they're installed in the old hierarchy. Believe it. I've seen this myself with gtk before it became gtk10. This was (IMHO understandable) short-sightedness on the part of the original committer. But it is fixed now, and all we can do is try not to do it again. I'm afraid we'll see the same thing with ports/x11/gnomelibs and gnome-config. :-( [snip] > This belongs in ports, not current, which is where I moved it. I agree. > I have a > suggestion, the same it's always been, which is that we support only one > version at a time, ONLY. If you want the old version, go get an old > cdrom. The new versions use the single config files names, as example, > gtk-config, not gtk12-config. Old files get overwritten, not moved > aside. You want 2 versions active at once, then you're a developer, not > a ports user, and you know how to do that yourself, and you should do > that yourself, not make everyone else pay your freight. See above regarding removing ~34 GTK-using ports. > I don't want to continue this. You think I'm wrong, that's fine with > me, there's probably truth to both our positions. for (;;) beat_dead_horse(); /* :-) */ Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904090122.UAA52632>