Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:02:01 +0100 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, marino@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBXxIVzaWtv?= =?UTF-8?B?d3NraQ==?= <lukasz@wasikowski.net> Subject: Re: State of the Porters' Handbook Message-ID: <20131028110201.0b53b976@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <526E2E8D.3020109@bsdforen.de> References: <526E234F.3090005@bsdforen.de> <526E2492.9080107@wasikowski.net> <526E2600.9010409@bsdforen.de> <526E272D.3040607@marino.st> <526E2E8D.3020109@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:29:49 +0100 Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> wrote: > On 28/10/2013 09:58, John Marino wrote: > > On 10/28/2013 09:53, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > >> On 28/10/2013 09:47, =C5=81ukasz W=C4=85sikowski wrote: > >>> W dniu 2013-10-28 09:41, Dominic Fandrey pisze: > >>> > >>>> Neither staging nor license management are described in the > >>>> Porters' Handbook. > >>>> > >>>> Why again should we bother to support it? > >>>> > >>>> What happened to "the feature that is not documented doesn't > >>>> exist"? > >>> > >>> Lack of good documentation is real problem for me to convert > >>> ports to staging. Porter's Handbook is seriously lagging behind > >>> recent changes - staging, license management, shabang fixes, etc. > >> > >> If it was up for a vote, I'd vote for a feature stop until the PH > >> is back in a decent condition. > >> > >> Kudos to the people who documented the new options framework. > >> > >=20 > > For all intents and purposes - licensing "feature" doesn't exist. > > The same issues you are raising have been raised before. > > Apparently the full licensing infrastructure is still lacking so > > it's in some kind of limbo. > >=20 > > However, converting to stagedir is reasonably documented here: > > https://wiki.freebsd.org/ports/StageDir >=20 > That's a handfull. What about installers that hard-code directories > during install? >=20 > > You don't have a choice with supporting stage -- new ports without > > stage aren't accepted. So that's why you have to bother. :) >=20 > That doesn't sound acceptable, considering the feature isn't even > mentioned in the Porters' Handbook. >=20 I agree, making something mandatory that's not in the handbook at all is bad. At the bare minimum the feature should be mentioned in there, even if it's just a stub referring to the Wiki.=20 --=20 Michael Gmelin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131028110201.0b53b976>