Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:09:45 -0700 per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Gary Jennejohn freenet.de!gary.jennej...@agora.rdrop.com wrote: mtools doesn't use config options. You have to set them on the command line when you install the port. When you install it, or when you build it? Build, of course, although that also usually implies an installation. --- Gary Jennejohn ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:24:26 -0700 Cynthia Flynn 1cynthia2fly...@telus.net wrote: Steven Kreuzer wrote: On Mar 19, 2009, at 4:06 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Gary Jennejohn gary.jennej...@freenet.de wrote: Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote: ... Cynthia Flynn wrote: [snip - syslinux pulls in too much X11 stuff] I think the extra dependencies that you find listed for syslinux: [snip] come directly from mtools ... Yeah. It looks like mtools uses X11 by default, which IMHO is incorrect. Instead it should have an option to turn X11 _on_, rather than one for turning it _off_, as it currently does. IMO it is a POLA violation for mtools to depend on X11 *at all*. Instead of having an option, maybe the port should be split so that mtools itself just provides the code to access FAT filesystems, and (say) mtools-gui does the fancy display stuff. mtools already supports WITHOUT_X11 so if you don't want the GUI stuff, you can build the port without it. Personally, I think it makes more sense for mtools to be the full and complete representation of the actual program. Can someone confirm for me that a normal port install of mtools brings up a configuration menu in which the WITHOUT_X11 option can be set? I do not remember seeing any such thing, but it has probably been 6 months since I last tried it. mtools doesn't use config options. You have to set them on the command line when you install the port. --- Gary Jennejohn ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 05:35:15PM -0700, Cynthia Flynn wrote: Steven Kreuzer wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Cynthia Flynn wrote: Can someone confirm for me that a normal port install of mtools brings up a configuration menu in which the WITHOUT_X11 option can be set? I do not remember seeing any such thing, but it has probably been 6 months since I last tried it. when you do a make install for the mtools port, it does not prompt you if you would like to build the port without X11. This can be enabled by passing -DWITHOUT_X11 to make, or adding WITHOUT_X11=yes to make.conf to apply it to all ports that you build on that system And I should have to dig into each potential port to investigate whether such options might exist before finding out the hard way that my system is going to be loaded up with things I neither need nor want? Not a very user friendly approach. There is a missing target which will show you what will be installed if you were to build the port. -- WXS ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Gary Jennejohn freenet.de!gary.jennej...@agora.rdrop.com wrote: mtools doesn't use config options. You have to set them on the command line when you install the port. When you install it, or when you build it? ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Wesley Shields w...@freebsd.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 05:35:15PM -0700, Cynthia Flynn wrote: Steven Kreuzer wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Cynthia Flynn wrote: Can someone confirm for me that a normal port install of mtools brings up a configuration menu in which the WITHOUT_X11 option can be set? I do not remember seeing any such thing, but it has probably been 6 months since I last tried it. when you do a make install for the mtools port, it does not prompt you if you would like to build the port without X11. This can be enabled by passing -DWITHOUT_X11 to make, or adding WITHOUT_X11=yes to make.conf to apply it to all ports that you build on that system And I should have to dig into each potential port to investigate whether such options might exist before finding out the hard way that my system is going to be loaded up with things I neither need nor want? Not a very user friendly approach. There is a missing target which will show you what will be installed if you were to build the port. So make missing is the shovel. The question stands. One reason for POLA is to minimize the *need* for such defensive practices. ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Gary Jennejohn gary.jennej...@freenet.de wrote: Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote: ... Cynthia Flynn wrote: [snip - syslinux pulls in too much X11 stuff] I think the extra dependencies that you find listed for syslinux: [snip] come directly from mtools ... Yeah. It looks like mtools uses X11 by default, which IMHO is incorrect. Instead it should have an option to turn X11 _on_, rather than one for turning it _off_, as it currently does. IMO it is a POLA violation for mtools to depend on X11 *at all*. Instead of having an option, maybe the port should be split so that mtools itself just provides the code to access FAT filesystems, and (say) mtools-gui does the fancy display stuff. That sounds like a reasonable course of action. I've cc'ed the maintainer to get their opinion. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Cynthia Flynn wrote: Steven Kreuzer wrote: On Mar 19, 2009, at 4:06 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Gary Jennejohn gary.jennej...@freenet.de wrote: Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote: ... Cynthia Flynn wrote: [snip - syslinux pulls in too much X11 stuff] I think the extra dependencies that you find listed for syslinux: [snip] come directly from mtools ... Yeah. It looks like mtools uses X11 by default, which IMHO is incorrect. Instead it should have an option to turn X11 _on_, rather than one for turning it _off_, as it currently does. IMO it is a POLA violation for mtools to depend on X11 *at all*. Instead of having an option, maybe the port should be split so that mtools itself just provides the code to access FAT filesystems, and (say) mtools-gui does the fancy display stuff. mtools already supports WITHOUT_X11 so if you don't want the GUI stuff, you can build the port without it. Personally, I think it makes more sense for mtools to be the full and complete representation of the actual program. Can someone confirm for me that a normal port install of mtools brings up a configuration menu in which the WITHOUT_X11 option can be set? I do not remember seeing any such thing, but it has probably been 6 months since I last tried it. when you do a make install for the mtools port, it does not prompt you if you would like to build the port without X11. This can be enabled by passing -DWITHOUT_X11 to make, or adding WITHOUT_X11=yes to make.conf to apply it to all ports that you build on that system Perhaps I am not as typical a user as I thought, and you folks certainly aren't obligated to address the requirements of niche users, but if the setting of WITHOUT_X11 is not clearly presented for setting during a normal port install then I would humbly suggest that for all practical purposes it doesn't exist for most users. Can we consider people who use the CLI an advanced user? If so, the expectation that they will be able to build a port with -DWITHOUT_X11 is not unreasonable. People who are more likely to use the GUI are the ones who will not be aware of the WITHOUT_X11 knob. -- Steven Kreuzer http://www.exit2shell.com/~skreuzer ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Steven Kreuzer wrote: Personally, I think it makes more sense for mtools to be the full and complete representation of the actual program. Personnally i think that such opinion considerably harms the ports system, by transforming some ports (fortunately not many) into a kitchen sink of dependencies, which cause considerable trouble for the unhappy users. Adding X, which is a very big dependency for a port like mtools, where nobody in his right mind would think or even know there is a guy, is like adding the whole TeTex for getting the symbol font (i have seen that) or other similar wise decisions. If a little judgement was applied in such cases, it would enhance greatly the usefulness of the ports system. -- Michel TALON ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Steven Kreuzer wrote: Can we consider people who use the CLI an advanced user? If so, the expectation that they will be able to build a port with -DWITHOUT_X11 is not unreasonable. People who are more likely to use the GUI are the ones who will not be aware of the WITHOUT_X11 knob. And the end user who uses prepackaged packages will get mtools with a totally useless GUI. I have hard time beleiving you are not trolling with such theories. -- Michel TALON ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
On Mar 20, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Michel Talon wrote: Steven Kreuzer wrote: Can we consider people who use the CLI an advanced user? If so, the expectation that they will be able to build a port with -DWITHOUT_X11 is not unreasonable. People who are more likely to use the GUI are the ones who will not be aware of the WITHOUT_X11 knob. And the end user who uses prepackaged packages will get mtools with a totally useless GUI. I have hard time beleiving you are not trolling with such theories. As I said in a previous email, you are more then welcome to fork the port and modify it in whatever way you please. When you do so, open a PR and I will gladly commit it for you. Take a look at net/cvsup and net/cvsup-without-gui if you need inspiration -- Steven Kreuzer http://www.exit2shell.com/~skreuzer ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Over the years, my default make.conf has accumulated options to tell ports not to include X11 dependencies. It doesn't always work, but I'd never have known that something like mtools had a GUI option. NOX11= yes NO_X11= yes WITHOUT_X11=yes I haven't reaped the older declarations yet because I still have a couple of old boxes. -- Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin lamb...@lambertfam.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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Steven Kreuzer wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Cynthia Flynn wrote: Can someone confirm for me that a normal port install of mtools brings up a configuration menu in which the WITHOUT_X11 option can be set? I do not remember seeing any such thing, but it has probably been 6 months since I last tried it. when you do a make install for the mtools port, it does not prompt you if you would like to build the port without X11. This can be enabled by passing -DWITHOUT_X11 to make, or adding WITHOUT_X11=yes to make.conf to apply it to all ports that you build on that system And I should have to dig into each potential port to investigate whether such options might exist before finding out the hard way that my system is going to be loaded up with things I neither need nor want? Not a very user friendly approach. Perhaps I am not as typical a user as I thought, and you folks certainly aren't obligated to address the requirements of niche users, but if the setting of WITHOUT_X11 is not clearly presented for setting during a normal port install then I would humbly suggest that for all practical purposes it doesn't exist for most users. Can we consider people who use the CLI an advanced user? If so, the expectation that they will be able to build a port with -DWITHOUT_X11 is not unreasonable. People who are more likely to use the GUI are the ones who will not be aware of the WITHOUT_X11 knob. No, IMHO you absolutely cannot make such an assumption. Perhaps you are too young to recall this, but in the days of MS-DOS, everyone was using a CLI and very few would surpass the designation novice. The UI in use does not imply a skill level. That said, yes, I am a relatively advanced user and could easily and comfortably customize the build. But I have more important things to do with my time than figure out what was made non-obvious and then document extra settings or steps for less knowledgeable people to follow. I've installed numerous FreeBSD ports that exposed commonly desired options during the installation process. As far as I am concerned, that set a defacto standard that the mtools port does not meet. I'm afraid, Steven, that I do not understand your resistance to improving the user experience, advanced or not. And why you're suggesting to fork the port when simply presenting the option in an install-time configuration menu is all it would take to address the need is also beyond me. Perhaps I'm still missing something here. Cynthia ___ 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
Re: mtools vs X11 (Re: FreeBSD Port: syslinux-3.72)
Steven Kreuzer wrote: when you do a make install for the mtools port, it does not prompt you if you would like to build the port without X11. I think enough users have expressed the opinion (which I share) that it would be reasonable to add an OPTION to this effect. We're fairly well into the era where users expect that significant build options will be presented in the OPTIONS menu, and this certainly qualifies. As to your other suggestion, I don't see anything wrong with a -without-gui version of the port, but I think that rather than copying/forking the port it would work best as a master/slave version. If I (or better yet, someone else :) ) can find the time to add a without-gui slave port do you have any objections to the mtools port being modified for use as a master, and having the OPTION added? Doug ___ 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
