From: | Craig Dooley <cd5697@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:55:30 -0500 |
I like the idea of standardizing everything, but I think theres two separate battles to be fought. Theres the idea of package building and binary distribution if you ask me. Ports currently does both, and I dont think the option to build from source should be taken away from the user, but a 486 router does not want to build apache, even if they want to run it. Making the port maintainers life easy should definitely be a top priority goal, but so should making the users life easier. How many people want to spend the time compiling openoffice? Thats about the biggest thing I can think, and granted, small ports take almost no more time to build than download in binary form, but for upgrades its much more convenient to have binaries if you ask me. I think we should look at this as two separate problems. One is creating packages, and the other is distribution/installation/configuration/ upgrades. -Craig On Friday 31 October 2003 15:47, Chris Pressey wrote: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:23:53 -0500 > > Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't think anyone is suggesting to remove such capabilities. Just > > give some structure (or at least style guidelines) to the method of > > creating these. This is already happening (slowly) in FreeBSD. > > Portlint was just enhanced to complain if the port maintainer uses > > variables in the USE_* namespace. > > Yes, that's all I meant - that the namespace be better standardized. > Call all user knobs <portname>_WITH_<option>, or something like that. > Maybe <portgroup>_WITH_<option>, pending definition of a "port group" > (GNOME or KDE make some sense, other groupings might be a bit muddy.) > > On the topic of standardizing things, it would be extra-nice, but > probably extra-difficult, to standardize the cached configure > information. I have no idea how much time is wasted just having > seemingly every single port independently discover the maximum length of > command-line arguments. Surely there's a way to reduce it? > > -Chris -- Craig Dooley cd5697@xxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp00010.pgp
Description: signature