Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 01:07:30 -0600 From: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@iteration.net> To: keith@freebsd.sinica.edu.tw Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, foxfair@FreeBSD.org, kevlo@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Something about ports/chinese Message-ID: <20001102010730.B9753@peorth.iteration.net> In-Reply-To: <20001102144635.B5169@bsdvm.jtjang.idv.tw>; from keith@bsdvm.jtjang.idv.tw on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:46:36PM %2B0800 References: <20001102144635.B5169@bsdvm.jtjang.idv.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:46:36PM +0800, Jing-Tang Keith Jang scribbled:
| While I appreciate foxfair for sending in those new ports under
| ports/chinese before 4.2-RELEASE, there are some issues/suggestions
| I'd like to make:
|
| 1. For chinese/netscape47-{communicator,navigator}, they need
| chinese/XFree86-aoutlibs as well. It's already send-pr'd
| as ports/22479. Please commit it also.
| 2. Please don't copy outta-port/* directly to ports/chinese.
| For those who are interested, outta-port is a port-extended
| respository for Taiwan users. It consisted of many temporary
Why do we keep maintaining outta-ports when the FreeBSD base distribution
has a Ports structure? The whole Ports system is full of files/patch-*
that can be construed as "ugly hacks." Locale fixes and patches
to make things compile do not really make that much of a difference.
| fixes and ugly hacks for Big5 users. Many people tried very hard
| to make them clean enough to get in ports/chinese. It seems
IMHO, some outta-ports ports are clean enough, especially your own ports,
Keith. :) If it compiles and it runs, why can we not have it in the
Ports? ports/chinese/mutt has hacks too, and so does chinese/big5con.
What defines a "clean" patchset?
Would sending stuff into the FreeBSD Ports give our "hacks"
a better chance of getting reviewed? Certainly there are many many
more people that can review the ports if we allow them a easy
way of reviewing them. Keith had to explain what outta-ports
is just right above my reply. Should we not let other language
groups review our progress?
At BSDCon I18N meeting, we agreed that each L10N group should
report on their progress periodically. I think that perhaps commit logs
are a way of reporting progress.
The FreeBSD system is monolithic, we do not want to fork and fork
over and over again like Linux. If every language locale group
had its own "outta-ports," imagine the users and maintainers' difficulty
of keeping up with them all.
| that chinese/netscape47-* and chinese/cle_base are directly
| copied from outta-port. Please at least ask the maintainers
| if you want to do that, especially when you ignored those which
| are already send-pr'd(ports/21691, ports/22341-22342, ports/22479-22481)
| 3. For chinese/cle_base, it should be renamed to chinese/linux_base,
| like emulators/linux_base(not emultors/rh_base). Please see ports/21691.
| It may be reasonable to repo-copy emulators/linux_base, since they
| only differ in localedata*.rpm and XFree*.rpm for Big5 support.
IMHO, this is very much different from linux_base. But I really
have no opinion either way
| But I'm not sure about this.
Finally, I'd like to say that Keith has been contributing a lot,
and I personally very much appreciate his efforts.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| keichii@peorth.iteration.net | keichii@bsdconspiracy.net |
| http://peorth.iteration.net/~keichii | Yes, BSD is a conspiracy. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
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?20001102010730.B9753>