-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list
> conversation, I came up with this list of suggested improvements
> for port. I'd like to see these things done, but I'm not sure how.
> Improve the docs? Create a checklist?
A fairly complete redrafting of the current docs (combine the stuff in
the handbook and the stuff in the porters guide into a "ports guide")
is one of the side projects of ports 2.0.
>
> 1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the config for
> the options that you want. So, when you select sasl in postfix,
> you never get the chance to check the saslauthd option, for
> example. 2) There's no standard for some of the details of port
> building. So, it's entirely up to the port maintainer and the
> committer to decide how to build the port. The postfix port
> maintainer *could* include a dependency for saslauthd. He chose not
> to. He *could* include a note in pkg-message that warns you that
> saslauthd needs to be installed as well. He chose not to. His
> choices are both reasonable and customary, but they don't serve the
> customer well. 3) There's no standard for the format of pkg-plist,
> pkg-message or pkg-descr, so port maintainers are free to put
> whatever they want in there. There's a customary way of doing it,
> but it's not set in stone and variations are found throughout
> ports. 4) There's no standard for config files. Do you overwrite?
> Do you ignore? Do you create port.conf-sample? port.conf-dist?
> port.conf-example? Do you check to see if port.conf is there, and,
> if not, copy it to ${LOCALBASE}/etc? ${PREFIX}/etc? 5) There's no
> standard for pkg-plist. When is it required? When is it not?
> (IOW, what's the maximum number of files you can put in Makefile so
> you don't have to create a pkg-plist? Do you use unexec always?
> Or only when you want/decide to? Do you just ignore the conf file
> and not uninstall it?
All of the above have been adddressed and/or on the agenda for ports
2.0. If you want details contact me, David Southwell or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] since the topic has been more then hashed out
publically and til some results are ready it is not a good idea to do
so again.
>
> I don't know the right answer to these questions, but I think they
> need to be answered. I'm willing to volunteer to do some work if
> someone will tell me what that work is. Docs? A committee?
Already established in forms of the ports 2.0 team if you want to join
we are always looking for new people.
- --
Aryeh M. Friedman
FloSoft Systems, Java Developer Tools.
http://www.flosoft-systems.com
Developer, not business, friendly.
"Free software != Free beer"
Blog:
http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/index.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHh46yjRvRjGmHRgQRApY/AKCJ6imZ2R0C+Fr1iwuGkPVMheouSwCfZpV7
NU46QLG7bgOkUjLLEhA0KR8=
=CAcR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
