Suggested improvements for ports

[Guido Falsi]

Paul Schmehl wrote:

> Is this how it should always be done?
> 
> This is my point.  On many of these criteria there is an uncomfortable 
> amount of "squishyness" so that port maintainers, *especially* new ones, 
> are unsure what the "right" thing to do is.  The porters handbook seems 
> written from the standpoint of a guide more than a manual.  IOW, it 
> advises rather than instructs.  I think that needs to change, because it 
> would bring more consistency to bear on ports and eliminate some of the 
> questions that get repeatedly asked because folks are unsure of the answer.
> 

I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the 
system. We need standards, but we can't cover every single case. There 
will be ported apps which can't fit in a too strict set of rules. Also 
stricter rules will cover less and less special cases, creating 
exceptions. Porting techniques need to be flexible.

This is, obviously, just my own opinion.


-- 
Guido Falsi <mad at madpilot.net>