Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:26:55 +0000 From: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/58840: [PATCH] exclude possiblyunrequireddependenciesfrom x11/gnome2 Message-ID: <3FA62D6F.3030603@liwing.de> In-Reply-To: <20031103111219.2f648450.Alexander@Leidinger.net> References: <200311021927.hA2JRIt2074978@freefall.freebsd.org> <1067833233.258.10.camel@localhost> <20031103045730.GV96543@toxic.magnesium.net> <1067843548.3865.17.camel@localhost> <oprx1wahkm8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> <20031103103238.73172852.Alexander@Leidinger.net> <3FA62265.5000203@liwing.de> <20031103111219.2f648450.Alexander@Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:39:49 +0000 > Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de> wrote: > > >>>I don't want to push this change into the tree, but I think it would be >>>a good idea to have it. The sole reason of this mail is to understand >>>the reasoning of the rejection. >> >>As far I understood, x11/gnome2 and x11/gnome2-fifth-toe are ports as >>specified by the Gnome team. So the ports installed by this port are >>defined by specification. > > > Let's have a look at the quakeforge port. Without specifying any knobs > it installs all files defined by specification (as in: "the authors > specify files x, y and z as the files which should get installed by > default"). But the port also has some knobs which allows an user who > knows what he wants to modify this specification (e.g. without servers, > without client and/or without tools). quakeforce isn't split into > several ports as gnome is, but it isn't as large as gnome is. In my POV > both ports are equal, so why do we threat them differently? > > XFree86-4 was converted into a meta-port a while ago to offer the > possibility to only install parts of it. While it doesn't has knobs to > allow this on XFree86-4 level, it doesn't need to, as there aren't as > many packages as gnome needs to install. So we offer an easy possibility > for XFree86-4. Why can't we offer something similar for gnome? You can as you can do with XFree86-4. Neither more nor less :-) Of course, like with XFree86-4, you cannot install the meta-port but you must install each component depending your own decision separately. Jens
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FA62D6F.3030603>