Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:14:17 +0300 From: Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <20060508211417.GA16847@daemons.gr> In-Reply-To: <1147122425.18944.67.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <1147119806.18944.59.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508203709.GA32661@daemons.gr> <1147121271.18944.63.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060508205703.GA11215@daemons.gr> <1147122425.18944.67.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:07:05PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Sideris Michael p??e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:57 +0300: > > > > > > > modify the existing Makefiles to include the OPTIONS framework > > > > > > > > > > That is the goal. Please submit patches whenever you hit the old style > > > > > Makefile. > > > > > > > > Submit patches for all Makefiles? No way. That is why maintainers exist. It should be the > > > > responsibility of every maintainer. In maximum 1 week all Makefiles could be modified to > > > > use the OPTIONS framework. If you want by individuals, what can I say, I will have it done > > > > in 2 months :P Is it ok with you? Not fair I would say. > > > > > > Let's make a deal. Send an email to every maintainer, asking them nicely > > > to convert their ports. Let's see what will happen :) > > > > So you are telling me indirectly that the maintainers are bored to dedicate max 10' to > > maintain something that is their responsibility? > > Does that surprise you? Yes it does. Cause this defines an irresponsible person. And positions like these should not be occupied by irresponsible people. > > If this is the case, then give me an > > address and I will be sending you periodically patches for every port. > > send-pr(1) is fine ok. > > But we will indeed > > make a deal. You are going to apply my patches and I will never see any new ports being > > added without having the OPTIONS framework. > > Can't guarantee that about new ports, because, to use your line, I'm not > the only developer. But I will pursue any patches that convert ports to > OPTIONS. So, can't there be a standard for Makefiles and enforce ALL people to use the OPTIONS framework? Sideris Michael.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060508211417.GA16847>