Ryan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sunday, December 17, 2006 at 10:57 PM -0800 wrote: >> Naming is important. I think "macosx" is a terrible name for a >> variant >> because it doesn't mean anything to someone that doesn't already >> know. I >> like the snmp variants to php5 as a model. Probably because I >> contributed >> them. >> >> +snmp >> +macports_snmp >> >> It seems clear to me what each one days. And if it still weren't >> clear >> there are the Portfile comments. >> >> # This compiles PHP5 with SNMP linked against Apple's included NET- >> SNMP. >> >> # This compiles PHP with SNMP linked against MacPorts' NET-SNMP. > >I object to this naming (for the SNMP port as well, I just forgot to >say so before) because the MacPorts philosophy has always been to >build its own versions of software, and not use any versions Apple >may already have installed with the OS. This is explained in the FAQ: > >http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/wiki/ >FAQ#WhyisMacPortsusingitsownlibraries > >Therefore, one should be able to assume that a variant uses MacPorts >software only, unless otherwise noted.
Though the standards and documentation to which you refer do not impose naming conventions, I do think the names can reflect this and I agree with you. I liked the clarity of the names and the naming method for the snmp variant, I wasn't necessarily enamored of the names themselves. >Therefore, I would have the >+snmp and +apache variants using the MacPorts versions of that >software, and introduce new variants to handle the cases where using >the Apple software is desired. (I haven't done research on what other >ports like this are doing, but maybe +snmp_apple and +apache_apple.) That's what I was thinking too, unless someone else can think of a better name I think that is probably the best way to go. > >Incidentally, I'm seeing this question in the FAQ > >http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/wiki/ >FAQ#WhenIinstalltheportofPHP5MacPortswantstoinstallApache1.3eventhoughIu >seApache2.WhatdoIneedtodo > >which suggests that the php5 port already supports all three Apache >options: > >- with the apache2 variant, it builds Apache 2 from MacPorts >- with the apache variant, it uses Apache 1 from Apple >- with no variant, it uses Apache 1 from MacPorts > >If this behavior indeed exists (I have not confirmed it), it strikes >me as bizarre, and I would want to change it to something more sane >and understandable like: > >- with the apache2 variant, it builds Apache 2 from MacPorts >- with the apache variant, it builds Apache 1 from MacPorts >- with the apache_apple variant, it uses Apache 1 from Apple >- with no variant, no Apache support of any kind is built I think that makes sense. Mark _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
