complaint

[Chuck Robey]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Mark Linimon wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Great!  Please send patches.
>
> > 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.
>
> Great!  Please send patches.
>
> > I am too busy right now to work on kde
>
> Well, there's the rub, isn't it?

Well, I have to focus somewhere, and kde isn't my choice.  I don't want
to be a dutch uncle though, so I will undertake to port several, as
examples, and write up what I did, for others to follow, would that be
helpful?  Like I said, I would be aliar if I said I would do 8000 of them,
I can't, won't, and won't lie about it.

Or am I all wet?  Make a suggestion, if I'm all wrong.

>
> All of these things will need to be patched in the ports, then
> documented, then tested all to hell and back again on tinderboxen
> before seeing commits to the tree.
>
> And that's why it has not happened in the past -- not because it's
> not possibly a good idea, but the actual implementation and QA that
> it's going to take is daunting.
>
> mcl
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey         | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD,
chuckr at chuckr.org   | 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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------