Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org>:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
Hello,
I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or
some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many
"problems":
1. Ports are not modular
What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages
it is coming,
but it takes time
I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin,
foo-dev, foo-doc, ....).
2. Option system is not really well documented
What kind of documentation do you need?, please report what you are
expected so
that we can improve it
3. Some dependencies are totally useless
Please report PR
4. So slow...
What is slow do you mean compiling is slow?
Let me give some examples:
1. games/wesnoth should be splitted in games/wesnoth-bin and
games/wesnoth-datas. Why rebuild everything when just binaries needs ?
This is coming, it takes lot of time, and some things have to be
done first, in
the infrastructure that the user do not see much.
I do not see any necessity for infrastructure changes here - we did that
in the past for several ports (e.g. alephone, alienarena, ...).
2. Why do we have to put WITH_NEW_XORG in /etc/make.conf to get it ? Why
not put this var in a port configuration file which will be read by all
ports needing this var ?
Because this is not that easy, do you have a technical way to
propose? I think
noone is really happy with the WITH_NEW_XORG, but this is the "less worse" :)
way we found, if you have a better way to propose, please step up
and propose.
/etc/make.conf (or whatever to be included in /etc/make.conf) can be
seen as port
configuration file that is evaluated by the ports. And each port picks
those things,
it needs.
Cheers
Marcus
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
