From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 17:40:39 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 3FC5216A418 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:40:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mad@madpilot.net) Received: from smtpi1.ngi.it (smtpi1.ngi.it [88.149.128.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C12713C459 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:40:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mad@madpilot.net) Received: from megatron.madpilot.net (88-149-173-206.static.ngi.it [88.149.173.206]) by smtpi1.ngi.it (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0BHeZxF020206 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:40:36 +0100 Received: from megatron.madpilot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by megatron.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9034E130C31; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:40:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from anakin.madpilot.net (anakin.madpilot.net [172.24.42.10]) by megatron.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A35D130C28; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:40:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4787AA13.1040403@madpilot.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:40:35 +0100 From: Guido Falsi User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071225) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schmehl References: <790a9fff0801110834s532a7282lf63061ad2b73acf5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: 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 17:40:39 -0000 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