Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:37:09 +0300 From: Sideris Michael <msid@daemons.gr> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports structure and improvement suggestions Message-ID: <20060508203709.GA32661@daemons.gr> In-Reply-To: <1147119806.18944.59.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <20060508200926.GA6005@daemons.gr> <1147119806.18944.59.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:23:26PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Sideris Michael p??e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:09 +0300: > > > Edit its Makefile defining the KNOBS you want > > You should never manually edit any files under /usr/ports Says who? I know it is not the right way to keep my KNOBS saved, but nobody prevents me from defining a knob somewhere in a Makefile. Plus, I used it just to provide an example of a way to do port customization. > > install with its 5 KNOBS, is actually 10 ports with 10 KNOBS. So what? Well, you have to visit 10 > > different port directories, after you find their location, go through 10 Makefiles to discover which > > of these ports can be configured by adding KNOBS to /etc/make.conf or by using the OPTIONS > > framework. And this is somewgar a mild case. There are ports with more than 20 dependencies and over > > 50 KNOBS. > > make config-recursive Hardly. Not all the ports are using the OPTIONS framework. > > Now, let's consider that somebody knows all these, which are not mentioned in that clear way > > through the handbook. He will need 2-5 minutes to configure his ports. Let me not talk about the > > average or new user. > > I will not let you. Average or new user does not need to tune any ports. > He's satisfied with the defaults. Very very wrong. New to expert user should have the right to customize any port. > > modify the existing Makefiles to include the OPTIONS framework > > That is the goal. Please submit patches whenever you hit the old style > Makefile. Submit patches for all Makefiles? No way. That is why maintainers exist. It should be the responsibility of every maintainer. In maximum 1 week all Makefiles could be modified to use the OPTIONS framework. If you want by individuals, what can I say, I will have it done in 2 months :P Is it ok with you? Not fair I would say. > > Also, it would be nice to include tools like portupgrade, not > > portupgrade, in the base system. > > Yes, it would be nice. You're going to write it? It must be in shell > or in C. Expecting patches. So, if I write it you will put it in the base system? > > I would like to hear your ideas and comments on the things I mentioned above. > > The conclusion is: the code will not write by itself. I am not the only developer. > > One last thing. Without any intention to advertise anything, I have creating a shell script, that > > given a port name as an argument it can find, or at least try to find, recursively all the > > dependencies of this port along with the KNOBS associated with each port and display which of these > > ports are configured through the OPTIONS framework. You can fetch it from > > http://black.daemons.gr/msid/knoby and modify it to suit your needs. Thanks in advance. > > Nice. > > It should not be necessary once we have OPTIONS everywhere, but, what > about a script that would emulate Gentoo's emerge -pv ? That would rock. Check the link I provided above. It has minor problems detecting the KNOB names efficiently, but it can prove quite helpful. Sideris Michael.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060508203709.GA32661>