From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 15 14:04:22 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46F516A4CE
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:04:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from peedub.jennejohn.org (Ja220.j.pppool.de [85.74.162.32])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA99143D2D
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:04:21 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from garyj@jennejohn.org)
Received: from jennejohn.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by peedub.jennejohn.org (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9FE4Jrc006244;
	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:04:19 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from garyj@jennejohn.org)
Message-Id: <200410151404.i9FE4Jrc006244@peedub.jennejohn.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.0 06/18/2004 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> 
	<200410151419.44415.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:04:19 +0200
From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org>
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: alternative options for ports 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:04:22 -0000


Michael Nottebrock writes:
> This is exactly why we need more fine-grained (slave-)-ports that translate
> features into binary packages which can be added and removed easily. If a
> user asks "How can I get this or that feature in $package" and the answer is
> "you need install the ports-collection, set some option and then recompile
> the port" it means that the port is flawed and a slave-port which translates
> the feature into a binary package is needed.
> 


You're joking, right? I certainly am not prepared or willing to make a
slave port for every twinkie option in the ports which I maintain! Not
to mention the explosion in the number of files in the ports tree.

---
Gary Jennejohn / garyj[at]jennejohn.org gj[at]freebsd.org garyj[at]denx.de