Doug Barton wrote at 13:45 -0800 on Jan 12, 2008:
> I have actually advocated in the past that ALL ports should have version
> numbers, and that we then create virtual ports (symlinks, whatever) that
> point to whatever is the "current" version of that software. Different
> developers dislik
Doug Barton wrote:
Dominic Fandrey wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
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.
As the ports man page states:
#
RW wrote:
Whilst this is a little irritating, and it would be nice to have it
fixed, in practice it's not all that much of a problem.
I didn't say it was. I just want to be sure that people understand the
limitations of config-recursive, and at worst that they offer the same
suggestion you
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:28:19 -0800
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> > As the ports man page states:
> >
> > # make config-recursive
> >
> > does what you want. It's surprising how often people claim this
> > feature is missing, even though it has been there ever
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On January 11, 2008 9:24:36 PM -0800 Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
First, thanks for you answer. Second, a clarification. I started this
thread from the viewpoint of a port maintainer (I maintain about 10
ports) who is concerned about confusing users.
Thank
Dominic Fandrey wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
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.
As the ports man page states:
# make config-recursi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Let me retract the comment about the OP contacting me privately I just
looked back at my archived mail and relized the names where simelar
but it was not the same person.
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> M. L. Dodson wrote:
>> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>>> -
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:24:36PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> If you're not keen to learn the SGML there are people who can help
> you with that, but coming up with good content that covers the needs
> of people like you can (somewhat ironically) be done most easily by
> people like you. I hope th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
M. L. Dodson wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>>> Paul Schmehl wrote:
1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the config
for the options that you want.
--On January 11, 2008 9:24:36 PM -0800 Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm going to try to combine your two posts so that I can answer in one,
my apologies if I scramble something.
First, thanks for you answer. Second, a clarification. I started this
thread from the viewpoint of a
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dominic Fandrey wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
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 op
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:38:30 +0100
Dominic Fandrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Schmehl wrote:
> > 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,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> Paul Schmehl wrote:
>> 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
>> examp
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> 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.
As the ports man page states:
# make config-recursive
does what you wan
I'm going to try to combine your two posts so that I can answer in one,
my apologies if I scramble something.
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
--On Friday, January 11, 2008 12:23:31 -0600 Mark Linimon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:10:45AM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
The porters handbook seems written from the standpoint of a guide more
than a manual.
That's something that I was going to work on, um, last year
Guido Falsi wrote:
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm
the system.
That seems to have been the community consensus in the past.
Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. M
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the
system.
That seems to have been the community consensus in the past.
Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. Most of what I've
tri
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:10:45AM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> The porters handbook seems written from the standpoint of a guide more
> than a manual.
That's something that I was going to work on, um, last year :-)
We need both. Right now we have this hybrid which isn't a completely
satisfactor
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote:
> I think that too much formalization in the porting rules would harm the
> system.
That seems to have been the community consensus in the past.
Nevertheless, the PH could use some improvement. Most of what I've
tried to put in there
On 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Friday, January 11, 2008 10:34:15 -0600 Scot Hetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > n 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum, but, in an off-list
> >> conversation, I came up wi
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:29:14 -0600 Paul Schmehl wrote:
Seems that some answers (well, maybe some not obvious, some lack
examples, etc.) are already at the Porters Handbook:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/index.html
> Some of this has been discussed ad infinitum
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Is this how it should always be done?
This is my point. On many of these criteria there is an uncomfortable
amount of "squishyness" so that port maintainers, *especially* new ones,
are unsure what the "right" thing to do is. The porters handbook seems
written from the s
--On Friday, January 11, 2008 10:34:15 -0600 Scot Hetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
n 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 th
n 1/11/08, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> checklis
-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? Creat
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?
1) You can't build a dependent port and first set the co
27 matches
Mail list logo
