ports structure and improvement suggestions

[Sideris Michael]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:07:05PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Sideris Michael p??e v po 08. 05. 2006 v 23:57 +0300:
> 
> > > > > > 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? 
> 
> Does that surprise you?

Yes it does. Cause this defines an irresponsible person. And positions like these should
not be occupied by irresponsible people.

> > If this is the case, then give me an 
> > address and I will be sending you periodically patches for every port. 
> 
> send-pr(1) is fine

ok.

> > 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.
> 
> Can't guarantee that about new ports, because, to use your line, I'm not
> the only developer. But I will pursue any patches that convert ports to
> OPTIONS.

So, can't there be a standard for Makefiles and enforce ALL people to use the OPTIONS framework?

Sideris Michael.