From owner-freebsd-doc Tue May 29 21:58:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC81A37B423 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 21:58:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: (qmail 31949 invoked by uid 100); 30 May 2001 04:58:16 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15124.32232.828130.553276@guru.mired.org> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 23:58:16 -0500 To: Dima Dorfman Cc: Mike Meyer , freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/27709: [PATCH] WITHOUT_X is used by many ports, but not documented. In-Reply-To: <20010530043326.CC78C3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org> References: <15124.28553.521171.74698@guru.mired.org> <20010530043326.CC78C3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dima Dorfman types: > Mike Meyer writes: > > Dima Dorfman types: > > > I tend to agree with Pete here. It doesn't make sense to document it > > > unless all the ports which can be compiled either with or without X > > > use this hook. > > Which came first, the support or the documentation? > Ideally? The documentation. In reality, esp. in a volunteer project? I think that for a volunteer project - *especially* one with as many contributors doing nearly-independent parts as the ports tree has - the documentation *has* to come first. Otherwise you get chaos. > > If it's not documented, how are port maintainers going to know that > > they need to support it? How are users going to know that it should be > > supported, so they can report the lack of support to port maintainers? > > And so on. > > FWIW, I think the name should be WITHOUT_X, not WITHOUT_X11. Unless > > there are no X10 ports, and no chance of there ever being an X12. > I agree with your points in the paragraph above this one, but I'd like > to see at least *some* support from the ports team before we start > documenting it. At this point it may do more harm than good; what if > you chose the wrong hook? Also, it's one thing to document something > when 1% of the ports don't support it (e.g., PREFIX), and another when > 50% of the ports don't support it (e.g., (WITHOUT|NO)_X(11)). NO_X is already 100% supported and documented in the make.conf man page. It's possible that some port maintainers are abusing it to do what WITHOUT_X does because WITHOUT_X isn't documented. > I guess what I'm saying is that there should at least be the *desire* > to support it before it's documented. (See my first paragraph in this > e-mail.) Well, I've got the desire for the ports I do - though I'm waiting on testing before submitting the first one that supports WITHOUT_X. I've seen commits go by for ports that supported this functionality, but the author chose a different name because there was no documented standard for this kind of thing. In other words, I think the desires is there, but someone needs to choose one name and document it. In reality, I ought to document WITHOUT_GLIB, WITHOUT_ESOUND, WITHOUT_IMLIB and WITHOUT_GNOME as well. But those aren't quite as critical, because they are documented in the ports .mk files, if nowhere else. Of course, it would be better if all of thewe were listed in the handbook, as well, but that's a problem for another day. http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message