ports structure and improvement suggestions

[Pav Lucistnik]

Sideris Michael píše v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:37 +0300:
> 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?

Says common sense. Next cvsup will overwrite your changes.

> > > 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.

I told they should.

> > > 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.

No one is taking away any rights.

> > > 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.

Let's make a deal. Send an email to every maintainer, asking them nicely
to convert their ports. Let's see what will happen :)

> > > 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?

Yes.

> > > 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.

That does not contradict my line really.


-- 
Pav Lucistnik <pav at oook.cz>
              <pav at FreeBSD.org>

Maybe I should go ask that elvish wizard standing over there
(YES A REAL ELF IS STANDING IN MY ROOM!),
he should be able to tell me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060508/d76b896e/attachment.pgp