On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:26:45AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: > > 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, ....).
I'm just talking about giving the ability to split packages :) after that we can imagine our own way. > > >> 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, ...). No be able to have sub packages and flavours (aka N packages from one port) there are changes needed > > >> 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. > +1 regards, Bapt
pgpjSA3LvOGeh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
