From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 17 16:39:38 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06691065672 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:39:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=pauls=2304bd7d9@utdallas.edu) Received: from ip-relay-001.utdallas.edu (ip-relay-001.utdallas.edu [129.110.20.111]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC948FC17 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:39:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=pauls=2304bd7d9@utdallas.edu) X-Group: RELAYLIST X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,238,1228111200"; d="scan'208";a="4207215" Received: from smtp3.utdallas.edu ([129.110.20.110]) by ip-relay-001.utdallas.edu with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2008 10:39:37 -0600 Received: from utd65257.utdallas.edu (utd65257.utdallas.edu [129.110.3.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D0748A87; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:39:37 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:39:37 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <914E354D94F6D86622B01731@utd65257.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary="==========F1F66B418CCA19711393==========" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Steve Bertrand , Mel , Tom Worster Subject: Re: lang/php5 port X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:39:38 -0000 --==========F1F66B418CCA19711393========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:25:02 -0500 Tom Worster =20 wrote: > >> If you're maintaining your >> own workstation, that might be an educational experience. If you're >> maintaining servers, that could cause an outage while you try to remember >> what your edits were. > > one has to remember the port's configuration whichever method is used. my > memory isn't good so i keep detailed notes. recording in these notes which > checkboxes in the config pseudo-gui were checked and unchecked is not > convenient. i'm not sure i wouldn't prefer editing a file and keeping a diff > with my notes, as i do for the other config files i change. > Your choices for the config of a port are saved in the ports system. (Look in=20 /var/db/ports/ if you're curious.) Unless you need to make some changes, they=20 will be pre-selected each time you update the port. (There are some exceptions = to this, where ports will always prompt for the config.) > >> If you think a port is incorrectly built (unnecessary dependencies, for >> example) there's nothing wrong with submitting a PR and asking the = maintainer >> to update the port. If the maintainer rejects your changes, you can always >> edit locally later, but your submission could benefit thousands of people. >> >> IOW, if you're the smartest guy on the block, please don't keep it to >> yourself. > > i'm certainly not smart enough to know what might be a better way to design > ports like php. but one thing seems odd to me. i ended up with dozens of > ports installed that appeared to use nothing but the same php-5.2.8.tar.bz2 > distfile. relative to what i'm used to with php (i.e. manual configure, > compile, install) this seems a bit untidy and i'm nervous what it might mean > for maintenance. > Php used to be one monolithic port. The problem was that it required a=20 gazillion options, and many people didn't want anything but the base install.=20 So php#-extensions was created to simplify the install of the base port and=20 make the options more flexible. For example, if a new extension comes out, you = can simply install it. No need to reinstall the entire php port. You needn't worry about updating. That's all taken care of in the ports=20 system. When you run portupgrade or portmaster, the extensions ports that need = to be updated will be. > my guess is that this approach allows the ports framework to handle > conditional installation of dependent software on a relatively fine-grained > basis depending which options the user chooses. that's a nice feature to > have. but wouldn't it be nicer if were just one port with dependencies based > off its configuration? > I think you can make a solid argument either way. > seems that would reduce clutter in the ports tree too and maybe effort for > the ports maintainer. > I don't think "we" are worried about clutter in the ports tree. There are over = 16,000 ports (and rising), so another 10 or 20 in php is a fairly insignificant = increase. --=20 Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ --==========F1F66B418CCA19711393==========--