ports structure and improvement suggestions

Sideris Michael msid at daemons.gr
Mon May 8 20:37:18 UTC 2006

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.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list