Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:47:51 +0200 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <1147121271.18944.63.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <20060508203709.GA32661@daemons.gr> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <1147119806.18944.59.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508203709.GA32661@daemons.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-ALhrosLnaogGOvh06F6b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sideris Michael p=ED=B9e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:37 +0300:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:23:26PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Sideris Michael p??e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:09 +0300:
> >=20
> > > Edit its Makefile defining the KNOBS you want
> >=20
> > You should never manually edit any files under /usr/ports
>=20
> Says who?
Says common sense. Next cvsup will overwrite your changes.
> > > install with its 5 KNOBS, is actually 10 ports with 10 KNOBS. So what=
? Well, you have to visit 10
> > > different port directories, after you find their location, go through=
10 Makefiles to discover which
> > > of these ports can be configured by adding KNOBS to /etc/make.conf or=
by using the OPTIONS
> > > framework. And this is somewgar a mild case. There are ports with mor=
e than 20 dependencies and over
> > > 50 KNOBS.
> >=20
> > make config-recursive
>=20
> Hardly. Not all the ports are using the OPTIONS framework.
I told they should.
> > > Now, let's consider that somebody knows all these, which are not ment=
ioned in that clear way
> > > through the handbook. He will need 2-5 minutes to configure his ports=
. Let me not talk about the
> > > average or new user.=20
> >=20
> > I will not let you. Average or new user does not need to tune any ports=
.
> > He's satisfied with the defaults.
>=20
> Very very wrong. New to expert user should have the right to customize an=
y port.
No one is taking away any rights.
> > > modify the existing Makefiles to include the OPTIONS framework=20
> >=20
> > That is the goal. Please submit patches whenever you hit the old style
> > Makefile.
>=20
> 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=20
> 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 :)
> > > Also, it would be nice to include tools like portupgrade, not
> > > portupgrade, in the base system.=20
> >=20
> > Yes, it would be nice. You're going to write it? It must be in shell
> > or in C. Expecting patches.
>=20
> So, if I write it you will put it in the base system?
Yes.
> > > I would like to hear your ideas and comments on the things I mentione=
d above.
> >=20
> > The conclusion is: the code will not write by itself.
>=20
> I am not the only developer.
That does not contradict my line really.
--=20
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
Maybe I should go ask that elvish wizard standing over there
(YES A REAL ELF IS STANDING IN MY ROOM!),
he should be able to tell me.
--=-ALhrosLnaogGOvh06F6b
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBEX653ntdYP8FOsoIRAleBAKCAH3Xu9J7Y7zW9KO6W5uDRSMvtDACdEggy
wC1sdcd7d8jA4bEudsK7Fig=
=Acpu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-ALhrosLnaogGOvh06F6b--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1147121271.18944.63.camel>