Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 23:58:16 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/27709: [PATCH] WITHOUT_X is used by many ports, but not documented. Message-ID: <15124.32232.828130.553276@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20010530043326.CC78C3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org> References: <15124.28553.521171.74698@guru.mired.org> <20010530043326.CC78C3E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> types: > Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> writes: > > Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> 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. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15124.32232.828130.553276>