From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 2 17:50:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E184C26; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8361C02; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.31.9.154] (unknown [213.225.137.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1DB43BC9; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:49:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <54060331.70505@marino.st> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:49:37 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tijl Coosemans Subject: Re: svn commit: r367002 - head/devel/cmake References: <201409021339.s82DdX36038975@svn.freebsd.org> <5405E33B.3040906@marino.st> <5405E50B.1030100@marino.st> <30FDC48D-0DF1-4EBA-918D-878048101E21@adamw.org> <5405E675.1090509@marino.st> <1C547D2C-011A-41A6-AA9D-891A056DD87A@adamw.org> <5405EC34.8070507@marino.st> <57AEDB52-B216-4048-AE95-4BD8E15494DC@adamw.org> <5405EF6B.6040301@marino.st> <20140902190750.55281fef@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <20140902190750.55281fef@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" , marino@freebsd.org, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" , Andrej Zverev , Adam Weinberger , Raphael Kubo da Costa X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:50:01 -0000 On 9/2/2014 19:07, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:25:15 +0200 John Marino wrote: >> On 9/2/2014 18:20, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 2 Sep, 2014, at 12:11, John Marino >>>> All this hinges on *if* it is indeed a policy. If it is, it should >>>> be enforced. >>> >>> Okay well, until you’re finished writing up your new policy, can we >>> make an option to prevent bringing in a dozen unneeded dependencies? >> >> That's a pretty unfair statement to make. >> I never claimed it's my policy, only that's what I had been told in >> #bsdports. >> >> On this particular case, these are a dozen "light" dependencies so if >> you asking me to vote on it, I say sphinx is not worthy of an exception, >> honestly. The whole set builds in a couple of minutes as I recall. You >> are make it a much bigger deal that it really is, especially given that >> these dependencies are most likely already present due to other ports >> having required them. > > There used to be a NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES variable similar to NOPORTDOCS > and NOPORTEXAMPLES. NOPORTDOCS became the DOCS option and > NO_INSTALL_MANPAGES became the MANPAGES option. Unlike NOPORTDOCS > though it was only used when extra dependencies were needed to build > manpages, otherwise manpages are always installed. So in this case > it would be okay to add the option. So what about all the other ports that use sphinx unconditionally? Shouldn't they all be changed to behave exactly the same? Either they all are optional dependencies or all are unconditional dependencies? i would have thought that it's not "extra" dependencies, but "heavy" dependencies and that it would be an exception to the rule. In any case, Adam is right about one thing: This policy needs to be documented. John