On Mon, 09.08.2010 08:58:34, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 01:20:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 08/08/2010 12:37, Rene Ladan wrote: >> > Actually there is nothing wrong with having SDL support in OPTIONS, I >> > merely followed the PR. If you can convince the maintainer to revert >> > factoring out SDL support, I'll be happy to make the corresponding commit. >> >> Personally I think we need a lot more slave ports. OPTIONS are great for >> people building the ports themselves, but if we're going to move to a >> model dominated by packages then more slave ports are a good thing. > >Slave ports can be good enough solution in certain cases (particularly, >when slave ports itself carries enough logic inside its Makefile), but >most of the time they just alter some knobs in the master, hardly more. >Just having ability to specify non-default WITH_FOO at the expense of new >directory, new Makefile with a dozen lines *irrelevant* to WITH_FOO, >extra line in ../Makefile and modules -- it looks ugly even for one >port, yet you say "we need a lot more slave ports".
As the submitter of the offending PR (I wasn't aware how big the can of worms this PR opens is) I feel obliged to give a short rationale why I wanted to factor out SDL support in a slave port of it's own. Mainly I am with dougb@ here: I think it's a good thing to have multiple packages for one port available if the packages are distinctive enough and they have a merit for the user of the port. Having said this it would never come to mind to create a slave port for wizard mode (which is a debugging and developer tool) or sound support (which is a very experimental feature including security risks - not to mention it's not working the way most people would expect it to). For SDL support it's different. stonesoup is a traditional roguelike game featuring a traditional tty interface. But stonesoup also offers a fancy SDL based interface including nice graphics, simple gfx, mouse control etc and therefore feels like a completely different game. I feel stonesoup-sdl is way more distinctive from stonesoup than, for example, nethack-nox11 is to nethack but YMMV. I think you are right that slave ports are basically a clumsy work-around for a deficiencies in the ports infrastructure - but port maintainers have to use the tools at hand ;) Having said all this I guess it would be a good idea if portmgr@ would create a guideline what kind of slave ports are wanted and what are not wanted. For me it is ok to delete stonesoup-sdl from the ports tree and put SDL back in OPTIONS - although I have the strong feeling that the existence stonesoup-sdl is warranted. Regards Tobias ___________________________________________________________ Neu: WEB.DE De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief! Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: https://produkte.web.de/go/demail02 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
