From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 26 07:31:12 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA508106566B for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:31:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mva@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtprelay01.ispgateway.de (smtprelay01.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ADC8FC16 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:31:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [80.67.16.115] (helo=webmailfront01.ispgateway.de) by smtprelay01.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1SjQAf-0000JP-F0; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:26:45 +0200 Received: from 83.246.65.147 ([83.246.65.147]) by webmail.df.eu (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:26:45 +0200 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:26:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> From: Marcus von Appen To: ports@FreeBSD.org References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H4 (5.0.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Df-Sender: ZnJlZWJzZEBzeXNmYXVsdC5vcmc= Cc: Florent Peterschmitt Subject: Re: Port system "problems" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:31:13 -0000 Baptiste Daroussin : > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or >> some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many >> "problems": >> >> 1. Ports are not modular > What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages > it is coming, > but it takes time I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin, foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). >> 2. Option system is not really well documented > What kind of documentation do you need?, please report what you are > expected so > that we can improve it > >> 3. Some dependencies are totally useless > Please report PR > >> 4. So slow... > What is slow do you mean compiling is slow? > >> >> Let me give some examples: >> >> 1. games/wesnoth should be splitted in games/wesnoth-bin and >> games/wesnoth-datas. Why rebuild everything when just binaries needs ? > > This is coming, it takes lot of time, and some things have to be > done first, in > the infrastructure that the user do not see much. I do not see any necessity for infrastructure changes here - we did that in the past for several ports (e.g. alephone, alienarena, ...). >> 2. Why do we have to put WITH_NEW_XORG in /etc/make.conf to get it ? Why >> not put this var in a port configuration file which will be read by all >> ports needing this var ? > > Because this is not that easy, do you have a technical way to > propose? I think > noone is really happy with the WITH_NEW_XORG, but this is the "less worse" :) > way we found, if you have a better way to propose, please step up > and propose. /etc/make.conf (or whatever to be included in /etc/make.conf) can be seen as port configuration file that is evaluated by the ports. And each port picks those things, it needs. Cheers Marcus