ports structure and improvement suggestions
msid at daemons.gr
Mon May 8 20:57:13 UTC 2006
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:47:51PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Sideris Michael p??e 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.
Ok, I know, that's why i mentioned is as an example. A bad way to do it ;)
> > > > 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.
Of course. That's why every ports should have a configuration panel.
> > > > 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 :)
So you are telling me indirectly that the maintainers are bored to dedicate max 10' to
maintain something that is their responsibility? If this is the case, then give me an
address and I will be sending you periodically patches for every port. But we will indeed
make a deal. You are going to apply my patches and I will never see any new ports being
added without having the OPTIONS framework.
> > > > 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?
It is on my schedule.
> > > > 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.
I just wanted to say that the fact that I am discussing something or giving a few ideas,
doesn't mean I have to implement them also.
More information about the freebsd-ports