Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:20:17 -0600 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/58840: [PATCH] exclude possibly unrequireddependenciesfrom x11/gnome2 Message-ID: <oprx2qj3c08ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20031103103238.73172852.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:32:38 +0100, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> wrote: > On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:26:31 -0600 > Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > >> > While I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. Not everything >> > needs to be installed. Why things like gnomemeeting should be >> installed >> > puzzles me. There should be an *easy* way for users to opt out of >> > unneccessary things. >> >> Easy answer for gnomemeeting, because it's part of Gnome. Check at >> www.gnome.org . > > PHP also has some default options and some additional possibilities. > While PHP isn't a meta package which pulls in "real" packages, it's "a > port" like the gnome-meta-port. I don't understand why we aren't allowed > to add features to it (with the actual behavior as the default). I'm a > ports committer and know how to handle this situation locally, but I > don't understand why we aren't allowed to give users without knowledge > about the internals of the ports collection user-friendly knobs. > >> > Plenty of other ports take advantage of WITH_* and/or WITHOUT_* >> options >> > to let users finetune their ports without forcing them to write their >> > own Makefiles. Why not x11/gnome2? >> >> I believe, Joe and Adam have answered it. :-) > > I don't know of a rule "meta-ports aren't allowed to have options", so > could someone please try to explain to me, why we cant offer a "I want a > different version of gnome"-feature to people which lack the expertise > to do it on their own? > > 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. I don't know how to explain it very well, but I understand (and believe) that the x11/gnome2 should not have the options what you want to install. Joe has covered in his new thread and past too. PHP and x11/gnome2 are very different and PHP is a package. However, as I said that I call it a feature. What we really need is to.... create x11/gnome2-lite (no option of define) that only need to get Gnome2 able to startup as desktop with no apps/bloats. The users should be able to install any ports what they want after they installed x11/gnome-lite. Lastest thread was about x11/gnome2-fifth-toe, someone (don't remember who) requested to add the option defines. We had to explained it to him that x11/gnome2-fifth-toe is supposed to have those packages without option. If you don't want those packages then don't use x11/gnome2-fifth-toe and pick the ports what you want to install or create your own meta-port. This is same idea as with x11/gnome2. Cheers, Mezz > Bye, > Alexander. -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?oprx2qj3c08ckrg5>