Griping about the ports collection (Re: OpenOffice2.0 64Bit ready?)

[Kris Kennaway]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:52:38AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:08:05AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:11:25PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 08:55:08PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:28:19PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:02:38PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:13:22PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > To some extent, the Ports Collection has outlived its usefulness.
> > > > > > > It took me 4 hours to fix libgmp4 and add a new port for mpfr
> > > > > > > because the Porter's Handbook is useless.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for the constructive criticism!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your welcomed.  Now, I'll wait to see how long it 
> > > > > takes to commit the change.
> > > > 
> > > > *sound of sarcasm going by Steve*
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Touche.
> > > 
> > > man ports
> > > 
> > > BUGS
> > >      Ports documentation is split over four places --
> > >      /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, The Porter's Handbook, the ``Packages and
> > >      Ports'' chapter of The FreeBSD Handbook, and this manual page.
> > 
> > Do you have a specific point?  Some of those 4 sources duplicate a lot
> > of information, and also cover different areas.  What about this,
> > precisely, makes the Porters' Handbook "useless", in your opinion?
> 
> Each of those documents contains material not found in the others.
> One may need to read *all* 4 to find the answer to their question.
> That is, if one knows all 4 exists.

To repeat: what, *precisely*, is missing from the Porters' Handbook
that makes it "useless"?

> > > I believe sarcasm looks like
> > > 
> > > 2000/06/30 ports/19594 new port: x11/qrash-sdl
> > 
> > If you say so.
> > 
> 
> Oh the irony.  This repartee started with my statement "To some
> extent, the Ports Collection has outlived its usefulness."  I listed
> only those PR's with "new port" in the subject.  Don't you find
> it somewhat useless for someone to submit a "new port" when it sits
> in the PR database for 5 years, 1 month, 12 days.  Several of the
> others have sat in the PR database for 3 or more years.

Did you actually read the PR?  The submitter is a committer, so it's
his own responsibility to deal with, and the PR is suspended
indicating it is not currently a candidate for committing.  Most of
the other old "new ports" have similar problems.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/attachments/20050811/35c2439a/attachment.bin