Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:55:38 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: complaint Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503151652320.11895-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <20050315164021.C84655@april.chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Chuck Robey wrote: > The point is, there is no organized rule to follow, like some standard > naming rule to non-options, so there is nowhere for users to be able to > make educated guesses about where the options ought to be. Great! Please send patches. > My own suggestion? Every port have an OPTIONS list, which is a variable > that lists EVERY available makefile option, and naming be such that their > use should be opbvious. Great! Please send patches. > I am too busy right now to work on kde Well, there's the rub, isn't it? All of these things will need to be patched in the ports, then documented, then tested all to hell and back again on tinderboxen before seeing commits to the tree. And that's why it has not happened in the past -- not because it's not possibly a good idea, but the actual implementation and QA that it's going to take is daunting. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0503151652320.11895-100000>