ports structure and improvement suggestions

martinko martinkov at pobox.sk
Wed May 10 18:43:36 UTC 2006

Serge Gagnon wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 May 2006, "Sideris" == Sideris Michael wrote:
>   Sideris> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 11:20:59PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
>   +> Sideris Michael writes:
>   +> > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:47:51PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:  No
>   +> > > one is taking away any rights.
>   +> > Of course. That's why every ports should have a configuration panel.
>   +> Wrong. I do not intend to convert any of my ports to use OPTIONS so
>   +> don't bother sending me patches. Many ports are so simple that adding a
>   +> configuration panel would be totally unnnecessary and ridiculous.
>   Sideris> So, if you have 10 of this ports as dependencies, you prefer go
>   Sideris> seperately to each port directory and search through the Makefile
>   Sideris> to find what KNOBS it provides. Nice.
> For my part, as an average user, it's "yes".
> I'm used to
> cd ${PORTSDIR}/foo/bar
> grep WITH Makefile
> more Makefile
> and I have absolutly no problem with this.

yes, you're right. it's not so difficult. but only if you talk about one
port. now imagine a few more of them. and things get worse..
another example -- a few days ago i deleted all the installed packages
and started from scratch. mind you right now i've got 375 packages.
that's quite a lot. but i can imagine many people have even more. now
imagine how you're going to configure them all. with options you're
asked once, you cannot miss them and they saved for later use. and
they're especially useful when a port has many dependencies. not
speaking of metaports. and, as already said, portupgrade doesn't handle
this very well. also editing makefile in conditional way is not good.

> I'm also used to work with dumb terminal (9term) and I don't like ports 
> that stop because it cannot display its blue OPTIONS panel (eg: 
> ghostscript).

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list