Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 01:21:19 +0300 From: Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr> To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <20060508222119.GA87391@daemons.gr> In-Reply-To: <445FC2C0.40700@utdallas.edu> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <20060508212441.GB767@picobyte.net> <20060508213504.GB73976@daemons.gr> <445FC2C0.40700@utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: > Sideris Michael wrote: > > > >Maybe I am not an expert regarding ports, but I thought there is a way to > >convert all ports Makefiles without any problems. Maybe I am wrong. > > > You're wrong about something much more fundamental than that. *Only* > the port maintainer knows why he or she created the port the way they > did. They may have *very* good reasons for *not* using OPTIONS, and for > anyone to assume that OPTIONS (or any other knob in Makefiles) should > simply be forced upon all port maintainers is simply wrong. I suspect > you'll run off more than a few by doing that. I never said to force the usage of OPTIONS. Force the usage of KNOBS. ONE of them, not both. > If you think the port committers, who are simply trying to stay above > water, have any idea what most of the ports they commit actually do, > you're dreaming. No one can know what 14,000+ ports do. That's *why* > you have ports maintainers - because they (supposedly) actually know > what the ports they maintain do, and they care about doing it right. > (I'm generalizing, of course, but I'm certain it's true for the vast > majority of them.) So in that sense if I become a port maintainer and I find a new way, I will include it. Since I will consider it to be the best way for a specific port. Come on.. > The first thing *you* should do is "grep -r 'MAINTAINER=' /usr/ports/* | > grep 'ports@FreeBSD.org' " and locate some ports that no longer have > maintainers. Then volunteer to maintain them. *After* you've gained > some experience (and I guarantee you will make mistakes and learn new > things), *then* you can suggest major changes to the way ports are > maintained. I don't have port maintainer experience, that's for sure. And of course I would make mistakes. That's why I am throwing ideas through these emails. I am merely proposing stuff. > For me personally, OPTIONS are optional, depending upon the port I'm > working on. For some, OPTIONS would do nothing, because there *are* no > OPTIONS. When it's appropriate, I use it. When it's not, I don't. So, more or less you suggest to leave it in the chaotic situation it is now. Sorry but i disagree. Sideris Michael.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060508222119.GA87391>