On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:27:33 -0600 Stephen Montgomery-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Auto-detection is certainly avoidable. Some for example only enable > > detection of MMX/SSE/etc instructions when not building in > > pointyhat/tinderbox. IIRC ports should respect the users' choice, but > > it's not easy with the current OPTIONS handling (some have knobs that > > can be set to on/off/auto). > > > > I think this could be solved (for both current and possible new system) > > like it's done with Python/wxWidgets/Apache/etc where there are port > > preference/user preference/auto detection/system default, in a properly > > fallback order. The problem is that there is no framework to do that > > with OPTIONS for individual ports. > > I think that if a totally new system is created, it should be done in > such a way that the port creators are forced to use a systematic > approach for OPTIONS. This is currently done in many different ways. > Yes, and options/knobs unification would be the first step towards it. The problem is that is has many limitations and is insufficient for some kind of uses (which still need knobs). > > The messages in pkg-message are packaged with the description/etc in > > the generated package. However some ports just print text to the > > screen, and that isn't recorded. It mostly depends on the port, but a > > recording framework may be useful (i.e. echo to screen and pkg-message). > > My point was not that ports sometimes generates messages that packages > don't. Rather it is that packages created using "make package" have > messages whereas those created with "pkg_create" don't. (Openoffice is > a good example of this.) > Didn't know that, as almost never used packages (until a few days, to backup a port built with/without debugging support, and it had a pkg-message which wasn't packaged). This will have to be solved by extending the package/package management tools capabilities (there are also other things to improve). Best Regards, Ale
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
