From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 15:29:16 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05D16A417 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:29:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from smtp3.utdallas.edu (smtp3.utdallas.edu [129.110.10.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D747613C442 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:29:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from utd59514.utdallas.edu (utd59514.utdallas.edu [129.110.3.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A71265506 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:29:15 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:29:14 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl To: FreeBSD Ports Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Suggested improvements for ports 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: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:29:16 -0000 Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list conversation, I came up with this list of suggested improvements for port. I'd like to see these things done, but I'm not sure how. Improve the docs? Create a checklist? 1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the config for the options that you want. So, when you select sasl in postfix, you never get the chance to check the saslauthd option, for example. 2) There's no standard for some of the details of port building. So, it's entirely up to the port maintainer and the committer to decide how to build the port. The postfix port maintainer *could* include a dependency for saslauthd. He chose not to. He *could* include a note in pkg-message that warns you that saslauthd needs to be installed as well. He chose not to. His choices are both reasonable and customary, but they don't serve the customer well. 3) There's no standard for the format of pkg-plist, pkg-message or pkg-descr, so port maintainers are free to put whatever they want in there. There's a customary way of doing it, but it's not set in stone and variations are found throughout ports. 4) There's no standard for config files. Do you overwrite? Do you ignore? Do you create port.conf-sample? port.conf-dist? port.conf-example? Do you check to see if port.conf is there, and, if not, copy it to ${LOCALBASE}/etc? ${PREFIX}/etc? 5) There's no standard for pkg-plist. When is it required? When is it not? (IOW, what's the maximum number of files you can put in Makefile so you don't have to create a pkg-plist? Do you use unexec always? Or only when you want/decide to? Do you just ignore the conf file and not uninstall it? I don't know the right answer to these questions, but I think they need to be answered. I'm willing to volunteer to do some work if someone will tell me what that work is. Docs? A committee? Suggestions welcomed. -- Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/