On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:22:50 +0000, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > This can still be discussed but I don't really like the idea that users > may alter packages an installation/extraction time, that would lead to > lots of potential buggy installation and report.
That's why list of alterations have to be recorded and relevant tools would mark such packages appropriately. Using filters would be considered unsupported (unless maintainer of particular port/package says otherwise). It's no different than doing unsupported things right now, just giving user more tools. Besides, examples mentioned by me like removing docs and unused translations are rather safe and save significant amount of disk space. > If user aren't happy > with the packaging, they can poke the maintainer, send PR, patch etc. That's not possible unless user is willing to build packages himself. Actually I would rather not have build time options for things that can just as well be performed during installation. Hacking makefiles to implement NOPORTDOCS is quite more complicated than setting a glob pattern. There is also one very important use case I didn't mention before. Such filters could serve as a hooking point for configuration management system. It makes it possible to capture config files as they are installed and perform backups, merges, check-in to vcs etc. > regards, > Bapt > _______________________________________________ > 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" _______________________________________________ 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"
