From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 18:54:01 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 031FA16A420 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:54:01 +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 D656113C4F6 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:53:59 +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 m0BIrvJD000423 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:53:58 +0100 Received: from megatron.madpilot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by megatron.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23B0130C9E; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:53:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from anakin.madpilot.net (anakin.madpilot.net [172.24.42.10]) by megatron.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D38A130C74; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:53:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4787BB45.4080309@madpilot.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:53:57 +0100 From: Guido Falsi User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071225) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <790a9fff0801110834s532a7282lf63061ad2b73acf5@mail.gmail.com> <4787AA13.1040403@madpilot.net> <20080111182015.GA1823@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20080111182015.GA1823@soaustin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: Paul Schmehl , 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 18:54:01 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote: >> I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the >> system. > > That seems to have been the community consensus in the past. > > Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. Most of what I've > tried to put in there is "here's what we recommend as the preferred > practice". There's not much "you can't do this" -- most of that > deals with things that e.g. break INDEX or otherwise wreak havoc. Obviously some rules are needed to maintain the structure, I meant no attack to that. I simply wanted to say that I agree with the policy stated above. Putting rules like strict limiting numbers to items or the like would be against the ports logic. I think. -- Guido Falsi