From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 22 01:22:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E90106566B for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:22:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13268FC0C for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:22:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 8601 invoked by uid 399); 22 Jan 2010 01:22:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 22 Jan 2010 01:22:55 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4B58FDF5.3060209@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:23:01 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20100114 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Julian H. Stacey" References: <201001211749.o0LHn5gh033380@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <201001211749.o0LHn5gh033380@fire.js.berklix.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Suggestion: A new variable for a few Makefiles: IS_BINARY X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:22:56 -0000 I'm sorry, you still haven't answered my questions: 1. What dangers are you trying to protect users from? 2. Why do you feel that existing safeguards for what goes into the ports tree are not adequate? Responding indirectly to your last post, the ports infrastructure is already VERY complex. Complex systems by their very nature are fragile. Adding more complexity (and therefore more fragility) without a very good reason is a very bad idea. You are asserting that a change is necessary. Therefore it's on you to prove that the benefits of the proposed change outweigh the costs. Some of the costs that come immediately to mind: 1. Someone has to write the patch 2. Someone has to test it 3. Someone has to identify all existing ports that install binaries. 3. Someone has to add flags to all existing ports that install binaries 4. Someone has to verify that new ports that are added to the tree either do or do not have binaries, and that flags are set accordingly 5. Someone has to maintain the code once it's in the tree Your assertion from your previous message seems to be that "it should be done because it will help some people, and won't hurt anyone who doesn't use it." I disagree with your analysis. I see significant "costs" in terms of person-hours to do the things that are in that list above, and I'm sure there are other costs that I'm not thinking of. So what I'm asking you to do is outline in detail what benefits your proposed change will bring to the community that will justify the cost of making the change. Doug