Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:38:21 -0300 From: Alejandro Pulver <alepulver@FreeBSD.org> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for Features: Ports Re-engineering Message-ID: <20071217123821.243b5f65@deimos.mars.bsd> In-Reply-To: <47669565.3090404@math.missouri.edu> References: <4766650C.4020305@gmail.com> <47667E17.6030004@math.missouri.edu> <20071217114211.0c10d1c3@deimos.mars.bsd> <47669565.3090404@math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/IIvgxEFTVkfewXEvP6Vi2BD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:33 -0600 Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> wrote: > > Auto-detection is certainly avoidable. Some for example only enable > > detection of MMX/SSE/etc instructions when not building in > > pointyhat/tinderbox. IIRC ports should respect the users' choice, but > > it's not easy with the current OPTIONS handling (some have knobs that > > can be set to on/off/auto). > >=20 > > I think this could be solved (for both current and possible new system) > > like it's done with Python/wxWidgets/Apache/etc where there are port > > preference/user preference/auto detection/system default, in a properly > > fallback order. The problem is that there is no framework to do that > > with OPTIONS for individual ports. >=20 > I think that if a totally new system is created, it should be done in=20 > such a way that the port creators are forced to use a systematic=20 > approach for OPTIONS. This is currently done in many different ways. >=20 Yes, and options/knobs unification would be the first step towards it. The problem is that is has many limitations and is insufficient for some kind of uses (which still need knobs). > > The messages in pkg-message are packaged with the description/etc in > > the generated package. However some ports just print text to the > > screen, and that isn't recorded. It mostly depends on the port, but a > > recording framework may be useful (i.e. echo to screen and pkg-message). >=20 > My point was not that ports sometimes generates messages that packages=20 > don't. Rather it is that packages created using "make package" have=20 > messages whereas those created with "pkg_create" don't. (Openoffice is=20 > a good example of this.) >=20 Didn't know that, as almost never used packages (until a few days, to backup a port built with/without debugging support, and it had a pkg-message which wasn't packaged). This will have to be solved by extending the package/package management tools capabilities (there are also other things to improve). Best Regards, Ale --Sig_/IIvgxEFTVkfewXEvP6Vi2BD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHZpftiV05EpRcP2ERAjH0AKC6u6V4t65ORQ/qB3vad90MR9nDswCfZbOE /+dt+cwyIMKv7Caqt08tED0= =o3mq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/IIvgxEFTVkfewXEvP6Vi2BD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071217123821.243b5f65>