Chris Hodgins christopher.hodgins at
Tue Mar 15 14:07:48 PST 2005

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:56:17 -0500 (EST), Chuck Robey <chuckr at> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andy Fawcett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2005 22:05, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > > I have not complained aobout this for some years now, although it's really
> > > and truly been a thorn in my side ... but I thought, well, I am probably
> > > OK to complain once per decade.  Here is my bitch:
> > >
> > > Refers to ports that include the kitchen sink, and DON'T do it as options.
> > > The one that caused me to really bitch this time is gnome, and it's the
> > > printing option, but it's the same with KDE: they both FORCE you to
> > > install CUPS, which I abhor, and have the most horrible time with.
> >
> > x11/kdelibs3-nocups is a drop-in replacement for x11/kdelibs3.
> >
> > next problem?
> That's an answer to a single one.  Did you notice the answer I gave to the
> gnome responder (I have to apologize right now, I can't remember names.
> I'm 'me' but beyond that, I get a bit hazy.  You're 'you', right?) Anyhow,
> for gnome, he said that *somewhere* in one of the ports, it did have a
> PRINT option (he did give more info), but since it wasn't advertised in
> the gnome2 port, well, it wasn't much use to folks.
> The point is, there is no organized rule to follow, like some standard
> naming rule to non-options, so there is nowhere for users to be able to
> make educated guesses about where the options ought to be.
> My own suggestion?  Every port have an OPTIONS list, which is a variable
> that lists EVERY available makefile option, and naming be such that their
> use should be opbvious.  Maybe, if it's not going too far, add a target
> that lists, port by port, the available options.  I personally think we
> should have fewer ports of higher quality.

I think this a pretty good point.  Perhaps every port option could be
commented out but show its default like all other config files do on
FreeBSD.  It would also be useful if every port supported "make
config".  Ports like vim and vim-lite...why don't we just have a vim
and a proper "make config" curses screen that lets the user decide.  I
would also like to see these values automatically being stored for
next time in a file somewhere.  When these tools are upgrading, they
should also say things like:

"Using USE_VIM_LITE=YES from ports config file."  

This would improve things a lot.  While I am pondering this subject,
when you type "make config" on a port, it would be useful if you could
select and option such that config recurses through all of that ports
dependencies configuring them all.  The config file should show if a
setting is just a default entry or if it is a user-modified setting
stored in a file in some central location.  I think this would help
with the overall friendlyness of the ports.

> In the past, I have occaisonally volunteered to do a category, but 8000
> ports?  I dunno, I'm not that big a liar.
> It's maybe indicative of my thinking that I think we ought to have a
> kde3-addcups port, which would add cups to an existing kde port, but NOT
> have a single kde port that actually installed everything and cups along
> with it.  I am too busy right now to work on kde, and I don't think that
> particular feeling is so important that it shouldbe listened to.
> >
> > A.
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck Robey         | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD,
> chuckr at   | electronics, communications, and SF/Fantasy.
> New Year's Resolution:  I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up
> fictitious words in the dictionary (on the wall at my old fraternity,
> Signa Phi Nothing).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list