Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:40:35 +0100 From: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Suggested improvements for ports Message-ID: <4787AA13.1040403@madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <C5131A30CA17872122E4A5A3@utd59514.utdallas.edu> References: <ED8842DFA28376008F3CA3A4@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <790a9fff0801110834s532a7282lf63061ad2b73acf5@mail.gmail.com> <C5131A30CA17872122E4A5A3@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Schmehl wrote: > Is this how it should always be done? > > This is my point. On many of these criteria there is an uncomfortable > amount of "squishyness" so that port maintainers, *especially* new ones, > are unsure what the "right" thing to do is. The porters handbook seems > written from the standpoint of a guide more than a manual. IOW, it > advises rather than instructs. I think that needs to change, because it > would bring more consistency to bear on ports and eliminate some of the > questions that get repeatedly asked because folks are unsure of the answer. > I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the system. We need standards, but we can't cover every single case. There will be ported apps which can't fit in a too strict set of rules. Also stricter rules will cover less and less special cases, creating exceptions. Porting techniques need to be flexible. This is, obviously, just my own opinion. -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4787AA13.1040403>