Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:39:37 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>, Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net>, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org> Subject: Re: lang/php5 port Message-ID: <914E354D94F6D86622B01731@utd65257.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <C56E920E.6B91%fsb@thefsb.org> References: <C56E920E.6B91%fsb@thefsb.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==========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 <fsb@thefsb.org>=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==========--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?914E354D94F6D86622B01731>