Re: OPTIONS (was: editors/vim installs to /)
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:12:18PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/5 David O'Brien :
> > On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> >> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> >> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
> >> > to query if I built with the defaults or not.
> >> > Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
> >> > customized just because /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME} exists. ??Thus
> >> > implying I can no longer install the pre-build package.
> >>
> >> make rmconfig ?
> >
> > I think you've missed my point.
> >
> > That does not tell me if I, in the past, made a decision that did not
> > like the maintainer's defaults, or if I just wanted to extract the
> > sources so I could read the license or figure out what the OPTIONS knobs
> > were about, etc..
>
> I understood, you prefere a file like make.conf or ports.conf to see
> which options/knob is defined, isn't it ?
That is true - but doesn't isn't really what's behind #2 above.
In this case, I really want to now which packages are OK to upgrade using
'portupgrade -PP' (or portmaster) -- to quickly do upgrades using the
pre-built packages Portmgr spends a lot of time making available to us.
I use a script that looks for a non-zero byte /var/db/ports/$PKG/options
or any $PKG knobs in /etc/make.conf. If either is found, then
'portupgrade -PP', else just 'portupgrade'.
This is where things like 'make extract' cause a problem - since one
cannot even extract without going thru OPTIONS dialog.
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?
Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting"
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: OPTIONS (was: editors/vim installs to /)
David DEMELIER writes: > I will try to do it, I think a replacement of ports.conf with a > make syntax would be better. I will try to do something in the > end of week. For informational purposes only: if you are not aware of it, portupgrade has "pkgtools.conf". Robert Huff ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: OPTIONS (was: editors/vim installs to /)
2010/10/5 David O'Brien :
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
>> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
>> > to query if I built with the defaults or not.
>> > Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
>> > customized just because /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME} exists. Thus
>> > implying I can no longer install the pre-build package.
>>
>> make rmconfig ?
>
> I think you've missed my point.
>
> That does not tell me if I, in the past, made a decision that did not
> like the maintainer's defaults, or if I just wanted to extract the
> sources so I could read the license or figure out what the OPTIONS knobs
> were about, etc..
>
I understood, you prefere a file like make.conf or ports.conf to see
which options/knob is defined, isn't it ?
>> The best thing to do is switch totally to a way to configure a port
>> and remove the other one.
>
> Only if folks agree on what the best way to configure a port is.
> I spoke with some co-workers last week, and OPTIONS weren't very
> popular with them. They also stated some of the the issues I listed.
>
>
>> I think we should try to upgrade the options
>> framework with what I said at 4. and 3. It's possible but we need some
>> work.
>
> Even without forcing all ports to go in one direction for configuration,
> this would be a Good Thing to do. Hopefully someone with interest will
> submit some patches.
>
I will try to do it, I think a replacement of ports.conf with a make
syntax would be better. I will try to do something in the end of week.
> --
> -- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
> Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned
> upon?
> Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting"
> ___
> 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"
>
Kind regards,
--
Demelier David
___
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: OPTIONS (was: editors/vim installs to /)
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:22:46AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> > 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
> > to query if I built with the defaults or not.
> > Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
> > customized just because /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME} exists. ??Thus
> > implying I can no longer install the pre-build package.
>
> make rmconfig ?
I think you've missed my point.
That does not tell me if I, in the past, made a decision that did not
like the maintainer's defaults, or if I just wanted to extract the
sources so I could read the license or figure out what the OPTIONS knobs
were about, etc..
> The best thing to do is switch totally to a way to configure a port
> and remove the other one.
Only if folks agree on what the best way to configure a port is.
I spoke with some co-workers last week, and OPTIONS weren't very
popular with them. They also stated some of the the issues I listed.
> I think we should try to upgrade the options
> framework with what I said at 4. and 3. It's possible but we need some
> work.
Even without forcing all ports to go in one direction for configuration,
this would be a Good Thing to do. Hopefully someone with interest will
submit some patches.
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?
Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting"
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:38:34AM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 23:02, David O'Brien wrote: > > For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. ?For gtk2, I have 49 > > packages that require it. ?So I agree their are significantly more ports > > that depend on gtk2 -- and thus little way to avoid having it installed > > on one's system. > > > > Thoughts? > > In my experience, unless you choose one of the minimalist window > managers and are very selective about what you install, GTK 2 might as > well be part of X. Ok, I've gone ahead and changed the default GUI to gtk2. > I personally like Ade's suggestion, since it makes a gui opt-in for an > application that functions perfectly well without one. This may be a good approach to take -- but I didn't see a need to not change the default GUI for now. -- -- David (obr...@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"
Re: editors/vim installs to /
On 10/02/2010 02:49, Ade Lovett wrote: > editors/vim -- fully functional console-only (no X11) > editors/vim-lite -- stripped down version (again, no X11, perhaps even > linked static for use within embedded systems) > editors/vim-gui -- take your pick. X11 is implied. athena/motif widgets > are pretty much dead, so unless there's a QT version floating around, GTK2. editors/vim editors/vim-lite editors/gvim editors/gvim-lite ? Makes sense does it not ? -- jhell,v ___ 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: OPTIONS (was: editors/vim installs to /)
2010/10/2 David O'Brien :
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
>> What is "sufficiently clean" ? I wonder what is not clean in the
>> options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
>
> When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers were to
> choose a reasonable set of configuration for the FreeBSD community
> and have the port build that way.
>
> Today we have ports that seem to expose every single option to GNU
> configure and giving the user a puzzling choice of too many things.
> Often the explanations are nothing more than restating the option
> name and the user is left wondering what is X? What does Y mean?
> How do I know if I really want Z or not? Why is threading so often
> an OPTION and not just the default? Why do I have to go read the
> packages README and INSTALLING to figure out the caveats of say
> enabling threading? Or what the other list of things are and their
> caveats?
>
> 1. One should not have to deal with the OPTIONS dialog just to
> 'make extract' if one wants to check the license or otherwise
> investigate a port before deciding to install it.
>
> 2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
> to query if I built with the defaults or not.
> Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
> customized just because /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME} exists. Thus
> implying I can no longer install the pre-build package.
>
make rmconfig ?
> 3. OPTIONS are limited to only checkbox YES/NO settings.
> Why can I not set PREFIX thru the OPTIONS framework and have it come
> from /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME}/options on the 2nd and later builds?
> Even the boolean NOPORTDOCS isn't available thru OPTIONS.
> Thus it is an inconsistent way to configure a port.
>
I agree. As I said in 4, OPTIONS should follow the defined knob in
make.conf. But for not boolean knobs there is something we can also
do, spawn a little textbox to define an option with a string. Example
:
[X] WITH_X foo bar
[ ] WITH_Y foo bar baz
[fr_FR en_GB] LANGS to be build
Here pressing enter on LANGS would spawn a little textbox that can be
fulfilled by the user. The little problem is how to tell to OPTIONS
that it's not a boolean entry.
> 4. When I build misc/mc-light and have "WITHOUT_NLS=yes" in
> /etc/make.conf, why does the OPTIONS dialog offer me
> "[X] NLS Enable gettext support" instead of defaulting the
> dialog to unchecked?
>
I agree with this inconsistency, I think with a little of work OPTIONS
framework should be to follow KNOB to enable an option if it's already
defined by the user. This would be great for people that use
WITHOUT_GNOME, WITHOUT_X11 and so on. I think it's possible to do it.
pkgsrc do it with PKG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS= setting.
> 5. One cannot opt-out of OPTIONS.
> WITHOUT_OPTIONS does not work to just get the defaults while skipping
> the OPTIONS dialog. Note, setting BATCH does a lot more than just
> make OPTIONS non-interactive (for some ports it stops other
> non-OPTIONS interaction with the user that one should see). Thus
> there is no way to get an uninterrupted default build of something.
>
> 6. One cannot opt-in/opt-out on a per-port basis.
> WITH[OUT]_${PORTNAME}_OPTIONS and ${PORTNAME}_WITH[OUT]_OPTIONS
> should be supported to control the OPTIONS dialog just when
> building ${PORTNAME}.
>
> 7. Setting ${PORTNAME}_WITH[OUT]_ (or
> WITH[OUT]_${PORTNAME}_) should set
> WITH[OUT]_ just when building ${PORTNAME}.
> So that folks who don't want to be interrupted with OPTIONS every
> time there is an update to the list can hardcode their choices in
> /etc/make.conf.
>
Yes, check my answer at 4.
> 8. OPTIONS make a mess in the typescript file from
> 'script typescript make', and the choices are totally unreadable vs.
> 'script typescript make -DWITH_FOO -WITHOUT_BAR'.
>
There is a disadvantages with knobs here, you must define knob each
time you install/upgrade a port. Of course you can do it with the
make.conf or the portconf system.
OPTIONS also prints -DSOMETHING when compiling.
Definitely, I like knobs and I like options. But mixing the both is
painful. You should check by typing make config or sometime lsknobs or
even reading the makefile.
The best thing to do is switch totally to a way to configure a port
and remove the other one. I think we should try to upgrade the options
framework with what I said at 4. and 3. It's possible but we need some
work.
Kind regards,
--
Demelier David
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, David O'Brien wrote: On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest problem here, IMHO, is not the OPTIONS issue, but rather the use of GTK 1 as the default. I have commented on GTK2 (explained) in the past. It is the kitchen sink that gtk2 brings in vs. gtk1. On my desktop gtk2 requires 64 other packages. gtk1 requires 20. I guess its time to take another survey. Is Vim one of the few last gtk1 consumers? It probably is. Nothing I have installed uses GTK1. Actually, this includes Vim since I have it using Athena widgets. :) BTW, I just noticed by chance that Vim compiled with Athena widgets for the GUI has no dependency on libXaw. This is all the dependencies on my Vim install with a working gvim: Dependency: python26-2.6.6 Dependency: cscope-15.7a Dependency: libiconv-1.13.1_1 Sean -- s...@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"
Re: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 23:02, David O'Brien wrote: > For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. For gtk2, I have 49 > packages that require it. So I agree their are significantly more ports > that depend on gtk2 -- and thus little way to avoid having it installed > on one's system. > > Thoughts? In my experience, unless you choose one of the minimalist window managers and are very selective about what you install, GTK 2 might as well be part of X. x11/xorg, with default options, pulls in 90% of GTK 2 dependencies via sysutils/hal and avoiding the rest means no firefox, which alone is probably a dealbreaker for most people. I personally like Ade's suggestion, since it makes a gui opt-in for an application that functions perfectly well without one. -- Rob Farmer ___ 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Oct 02, 2010, at 01:02 , David O'Brien wrote: > I guess its time to take another survey. Is Vim one of the few last > gtk1 consumers? Without touching on any of the other issues, yes, indeed, (a) gtk v1 is abandonware and (b) vim-with-defaults is one of the last major consumers of gtk1. If I may be so bold, allow me to offer up an alternative. editors/vim -- fully functional console-only (no X11) editors/vim-lite -- stripped down version (again, no X11, perhaps even linked static for use within embedded systems) editors/vim-gui -- take your pick. X11 is implied. athena/motif widgets are pretty much dead, so unless there's a QT version floating around, GTK2. vim is the MASTER, vim-lite slave strips stuff out of vim, vim-gui adds stuff to vim. Might even be able to avoid the whole OPTIONS issue (which I'm purposefully not touching on here) with this kind of setup. -aDe ___ 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 11:02:01PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: > > However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer > > could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and > > would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest > > problem here, IMHO, is not the OPTIONS issue, but rather the use of > > GTK 1 as the default. > > I have commented on GTK2 (explained) in the past. Oh, I forgot to mention that I don't find the Vim gtk2 icons near as intuitive as the gtk1 ones. And I really take the mswin'ifcation of UNIX (gtk2 refers to "folder", where gtk1 calls the things "directory") And most of all I totally cannot stand the GNOME dumbass reversal of umpteen years of UNIX ordering of [OK] vs. [Cancel] boxes. The GNOME folks have now created major inconstancy in the ordering of the various applications I run depending on if it is a basic Motif, KDE, or GNOME toolkit consumer. The ordering inconstancy has caused my muscle memory to choose the wrong thing (loosing data). -- -- David (obr...@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"
Re: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
> However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer
> could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and
> would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest
> problem here, IMHO, is not the OPTIONS issue, but rather the use of
> GTK 1 as the default.
I have commented on GTK2 (explained) in the past.
It is the kitchen sink that gtk2 brings in vs. gtk1. On my desktop
gtk2 requires 64 other packages. gtk1 requires 20.
I guess its time to take another survey. Is Vim one of the few last
gtk1 consumers?
For gtk1, I have 13 packages that require it. For gtk2, I have 49
packages that require it. So I agree their are significantly more ports
that depend on gtk2 -- and thus little way to avoid having it installed
on one's system.
> I think either defaulting to GTK 2 or just making vim a
> console application would eliminate most of these complaints.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/editors/vim/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.362
diff -u -p -u -1 -r1.362 Makefile
--- Makefile2 Oct 2010 01:55:08 - 1.362
+++ Makefile2 Oct 2010 06:00:34 -
@@ -40,3 +43,3 @@ SLAVEDIRS=editors/vim-lite
-CONFLICTS= vim6* vim*-lite
+CONFLICTS= vim6* vim*-lite vim*-gtk1 vim*-gnome
MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes
@@ -126,4 +129,4 @@ MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_TCL="--enable-tclin
# for now default the GUI to the GTK+ one
-. if !defined(WITH_X11_ONLY) && !defined(WITH_ATHENA) && !defined(WITH_MOTIF)
&& !defined(WITH_GNOME) && !defined(WITH_GTK) && !defined(WITH_GTK2)
-WITH_GTK= yes
+. if !defined(WITH_X11_ONLY) && !defined(WITH_ATHENA) && !defined(WITH_MOTIF)
&& !defined(WITH_GNOME) && !defined(WITH_GTK1) && !defined(WITH_GTK2)
+WITH_GTK2= yes
. endif
@@ -132,3 +135,3 @@ WITH_GTK= yes
MAKE_ARGS+=CONF_OPT_GUI="--enable-gui=athena" ${I18N}
-. elif defined(WITH_GTK)
+. elif defined(WITH_GTK1)
USE_GNOME= gtk12
@@ -137,5 +140,5 @@ MAKE_ARGS+= X_LIBS="$(X_LIBS) -lXt"
USE_XORG+= xt
+PKGNAMESUFFIX= -gtk1
. elif defined(WITH_GTK2)
USE_GNOME= gtk20
-PKGNAMESUFFIX= -gtk2
MAKE_ARGS+=CONF_OPT_GUI="--enable-gui=gtk2 --with-gtk-prefix=${LOCALBASE}"
${I18N}
@@ -257,2 +260,8 @@ show-options:
+.if defined(WITH_GTK)
+.BEGIN:
+ @${ECHO_CMD} "WITH_GTK has been renamed WITH_GTK1."
+ @exit 1
+.endif
+
cklatest:
Thoughts?
--
-- David(obr...@nuxi.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"
OPTIONS (was: editors/vim installs to /)
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:24:59AM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> What is "sufficiently clean" ? I wonder what is not clean in the
> options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it?
When the Ports Collection was invented, ports maintainers were to
choose a reasonable set of configuration for the FreeBSD community
and have the port build that way.
Today we have ports that seem to expose every single option to GNU
configure and giving the user a puzzling choice of too many things.
Often the explanations are nothing more than restating the option
name and the user is left wondering what is X? What does Y mean?
How do I know if I really want Z or not? Why is threading so often
an OPTION and not just the default? Why do I have to go read the
packages README and INSTALLING to figure out the caveats of say
enabling threading? Or what the other list of things are and their
caveats?
1. One should not have to deal with the OPTIONS dialog just to
'make extract' if one wants to check the license or otherwise
investigate a port before deciding to install it.
2. With the way OPTIONS handling is done, there isn't a way for me
to query if I built with the defaults or not.
Thus leading to every port I manually install looking like it was
customized just because /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME} exists. Thus
implying I can no longer install the pre-build package.
3. OPTIONS are limited to only checkbox YES/NO settings.
Why can I not set PREFIX thru the OPTIONS framework and have it come
from /var/db/ports/${PORTNAME}/options on the 2nd and later builds?
Even the boolean NOPORTDOCS isn't available thru OPTIONS.
Thus it is an inconsistent way to configure a port.
4. When I build misc/mc-light and have "WITHOUT_NLS=yes" in
/etc/make.conf, why does the OPTIONS dialog offer me
"[X] NLS Enable gettext support" instead of defaulting the
dialog to unchecked?
5. One cannot opt-out of OPTIONS.
WITHOUT_OPTIONS does not work to just get the defaults while skipping
the OPTIONS dialog. Note, setting BATCH does a lot more than just
make OPTIONS non-interactive (for some ports it stops other
non-OPTIONS interaction with the user that one should see). Thus
there is no way to get an uninterrupted default build of something.
6. One cannot opt-in/opt-out on a per-port basis.
WITH[OUT]_${PORTNAME}_OPTIONS and ${PORTNAME}_WITH[OUT]_OPTIONS
should be supported to control the OPTIONS dialog just when
building ${PORTNAME}.
7. Setting ${PORTNAME}_WITH[OUT]_ (or
WITH[OUT]_${PORTNAME}_) should set
WITH[OUT]_ just when building ${PORTNAME}.
So that folks who don't want to be interrupted with OPTIONS every
time there is an update to the list can hardcode their choices in
/etc/make.conf.
8. OPTIONS make a mess in the typescript file from
'script typescript make', and the choices are totally unreadable vs.
'script typescript make -DWITH_FOO -WITHOUT_BAR'.
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?
Let's not play "Jeopardy-style quoting"
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:34, Lars Engels wrote: > editors/vim-lite is console only. > That seems to disable a lot of other stuff too. .if !defined(LITE) MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_FEAT="--with-features=big" However, I will definitely take a look at it. Thank you for suggesting it. -- Rob Farmer ___ 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote: > >> > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing, > >> > do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not > >> > necessary. Let your code speak for itself. > >> > > >> > -- WXS > >> > >> This port has major issues and numerous polite requests (including > >> with patches) to fix them have been summarily ignored or rejected. So > >> don't act surprised when people start to get annoyed by the situation. > > > > I'm not surprised. I'm pointing out that attacks like that are not going > > to further the cause of getting the port the care you think it deserves. > > > > Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is beyond polite requests and > > patches to fix the problems as you see them. I do know that attacks are > > not the answer and are in fact harmful to achieving a goal. > > > > -- WXS > > > > Fair enough. My apologies if my comments on this were too aggressive. > > However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer > could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and > would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest > problem here, IMHO, is not the OPTIONS issue, but rather the use of > GTK 1 as the default. Plenty of ports don't support OPTIONS, even > though they could, and many users ignore options by setting BATCH, but > it isn't a big deal because the defaults are ideal for most > situations. I think either defaulting to GTK 2 or just making vim a > console application would eliminate most of these complaints. editors/vim-lite is console only. pgpOCj7bxYWZn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: editors/vim installs to /
2010/9/19 David O'Brien : > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >> I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a >> real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB >> that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clean things >> and I think he won't commit it because it won't be enough complicated. > > No I won't commit it - I do like clean things I don't find OPTIONS to be > sufficiently clean. So please don't waste your time and mine. If you > have improvements (other than removing WITH_VIM_OPTIONS), please do send > those in. > What is "sufficiently clean" ? I wonder what is not clean in the options framework, so please tell me then we still can clean it? -- Demelier David ___ 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
> real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
> that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clean things
> and I think he won't commit it because it won't be enough complicated.
No I won't commit it - I do like clean things I don't find OPTIONS to be
sufficiently clean. So please don't waste your time and mine. If you
have improvements (other than removing WITH_VIM_OPTIONS), please do send
those in.
BTW, here is one patch I am considering:
Index: options
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/editors/vim/options,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 options
--- options 29 Dec 2009 08:46:57 - 1.4
+++ options 18 Sep 2010 22:37:14 -
@@ -13,3 +13,25 @@ OPTIONS= PERL "Enable Perl interpreter"
GTK2 "GTK2 GUI" off \
GNOME "Gnome1 GUI" off \
MOTIF "Motif GUI" off \
+
+pretty-print-options:
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Vim Options ==="
+ @${ECHO_CMD} "Features:"
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_LITE to build the \"lite\" version."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_CSCOPE to build with cscope support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define EXUBERANT_CTAGS to use exctags."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_PERL to build with Perl support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_PYTHON to build with Python support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_RUBY to build with Ruby support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_TCL to build with TCL support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD}
+ @${ECHO_CMD} "Graphical User Interface (GUI):"
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITHOUT_X11 to build without GUI support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define X11_ONLY to build curses-only Vim, but with
basic X11 support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define XTERM_SAVE to restore xterm screen after exit."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_ATHENA to build with Athena support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_MOTIF to build with Motif support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_GTK to build with GTK support (default)."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_GTK2 to build with GTK2 support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} " Define WITH_GNOME to build with Gnome support."
+ @${ECHO_CMD} "=="
--
-- David (obr...@freebsd.org)
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: editors/vim installs to /
Anonymous writes:
> jhell writes:
>
>> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
>> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
>> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Does the following diff fixes it?
>
> %%
> Index: editors/vim/Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /a/.cvsup/ports/editors/vim/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision 1.357
> diff -u -p -r1.357 Makefile
> --- editors/vim/Makefile 17 Sep 2010 00:46:45 - 1.357
> +++ editors/vim/Makefile 17 Sep 2010 23:47:49 -
> @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_GUI="--enable-gui=n
> MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_PERL="--disable-perlinterp --disable-pythoninterp
> --disable-tclinterp --disable-rubyinterp"
> .endif # LITE
>
> -.if exists(${PREFIX}/lib/libiconv.so)
> +.if exists(${LOCALBASE}/lib/libiconv.so)
> USE_ICONV= yes
> .endif
>
Oops, this hunk with a tiny bit of description is now in ports/150690.
It addresses an unrelated issue.
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ pre-configure:
> .endif
>
> post-configure:
> - @(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${MAKE} scratch config)
> + @(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${SETENV} ${MAKE_ENV} ${MAKE} ${MAKE_ARGS} scratch
> config)
>
> #Clean up junk files to keep them from being installed.
> pre-install:
> %%
And this hunk is resent as followup to ports/150649.
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 03:52:17AM +0400, Anonymous wrote: > jhell writes: > > > After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not > > registering the files it installed already I found out that it is > > installing to / ~! ugh. > > Does the following diff fixes it? It does allow the port to pass my tinderbox tests. Hopefully obrien@ will commit it shortly. -- 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 16:24, Wesley Shields wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote: >> > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing, >> > do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not >> > necessary. Let your code speak for itself. >> > >> > -- WXS >> >> This port has major issues and numerous polite requests (including >> with patches) to fix them have been summarily ignored or rejected. So >> don't act surprised when people start to get annoyed by the situation. > > I'm not surprised. I'm pointing out that attacks like that are not going > to further the cause of getting the port the care you think it deserves. > > Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is beyond polite requests and > patches to fix the problems as you see them. I do know that attacks are > not the answer and are in fact harmful to achieving a goal. > > -- WXS > Fair enough. My apologies if my comments on this were too aggressive. However, I still think it would benefit everyone if the maintainer could provide an explanation for some of the current behavior and would at least be open to discussion about changing it. The biggest problem here, IMHO, is not the OPTIONS issue, but rather the use of GTK 1 as the default. Plenty of ports don't support OPTIONS, even though they could, and many users ignore options by setting BATCH, but it isn't a big deal because the defaults are ideal for most situations. I think either defaulting to GTK 2 or just making vim a console application would eliminate most of these complaints. -- Rob Farmer ___ 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: editors/vim installs to /
jhell writes:
> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> installing to / ~! ugh.
Does the following diff fixes it?
%%
Index: editors/vim/Makefile
===
RCS file: /a/.cvsup/ports/editors/vim/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.357
diff -u -p -r1.357 Makefile
--- editors/vim/Makefile17 Sep 2010 00:46:45 - 1.357
+++ editors/vim/Makefile17 Sep 2010 23:47:49 -
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_GUI="--enable-gui=n
MAKE_ARGS+=CONF_OPT_PERL="--disable-perlinterp --disable-pythoninterp
--disable-tclinterp --disable-rubyinterp"
.endif # LITE
-.if exists(${PREFIX}/lib/libiconv.so)
+.if exists(${LOCALBASE}/lib/libiconv.so)
USE_ICONV= yes
.endif
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ pre-configure:
.endif
post-configure:
- @(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${MAKE} scratch config)
+ @(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${SETENV} ${MAKE_ENV} ${MAKE} ${MAKE_ARGS} scratch
config)
# Clean up junk files to keep them from being installed.
pre-install:
%%
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: editors/vim installs to /
On 09/17/2010 19:52, Anonymous wrote:
> jhell writes:
>
>> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
>> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
>> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Does the following diff fixes it?
>
> %%
> Index: editors/vim/Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /a/.cvsup/ports/editors/vim/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision 1.357
> diff -u -p -r1.357 Makefile
> --- editors/vim/Makefile 17 Sep 2010 00:46:45 - 1.357
> +++ editors/vim/Makefile 17 Sep 2010 23:47:49 -
> @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_GUI="--enable-gui=n
> MAKE_ARGS+= CONF_OPT_PERL="--disable-perlinterp --disable-pythoninterp
> --disable-tclinterp --disable-rubyinterp"
> .endif # LITE
>
> -.if exists(${PREFIX}/lib/libiconv.so)
> +.if exists(${LOCALBASE}/lib/libiconv.so)
> USE_ICONV= yes
> .endif
>
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ pre-configure:
> .endif
>
> post-configure:
> - @(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${MAKE} scratch config)
> + @(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${SETENV} ${MAKE_ENV} ${MAKE} ${MAKE_ARGS} scratch
> config)
>
> #Clean up junk files to keep them from being installed.
> pre-install:
> %%
Since this really is not specific to one installation on a single system
and that I have already compiled and re-installed this port I will not
be testing this patch. Thank you for providing more information to the
maintainer.
Regards,
--
jhell,v
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
On 09/17/2010 19:22, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:18:09PM -0400, jhell wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
>>>
>>> I reverted to the previous Makefile just to get something working before
>>> I leave. I did want to point out that the cleanup (at least for me) was
>>> not that hard. /man and /share were left behind along with a handful of
>>> files in /bin that shouldn't have been there. Once I had reverted and
>>> installed vim I was able to use something like
>>>
>>> pkg_info -L -x vim | fgrep /usr/local/bin | sed -e 's|/usr/local||'
>>>
>>> To find the files which were in /bin that should not have been there.
>>> Not all of them were there in my case but the cleanup was easy. Just
>>> delete /man and /share and the handful of files in /bin.
>>>
>>> I still don't know what the real fix for this is but hopefully someone
>>> is working on it. ;)
>>>
>>> -- WXS
>>
>> Attached is the exact patch that fixes this. The two effected areas are
>> post & pre-configure. My best guess on this lays on the REINPLACE_CMD in
>> pre-configure but I could be wrong.
>
> You may want to also revert the MAKE_JOBS_SAFE too.
>
> -- WXS
Yeah I am leaving that up to the committee to decide. With that setting
here, it builds and installs fine so I am not concerned with it as I
have no control over the end result.
--
jhell,v
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote: > > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing, > > do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not > > necessary. Let your code speak for itself. > > > > -- WXS > > This port has major issues and numerous polite requests (including > with patches) to fix them have been summarily ignored or rejected. So > don't act surprised when people start to get annoyed by the situation. I'm not surprised. I'm pointing out that attacks like that are not going to further the cause of getting the port the care you think it deserves. Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is beyond polite requests and patches to fix the problems as you see them. I do know that attacks are not the answer and are in fact harmful to achieving a goal. -- 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 07:18:09PM -0400, jhell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
> >>
> >> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> >> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> >> installing to / ~! ugh.
> >>
> >> Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
> >
> > I reverted to the previous Makefile just to get something working before
> > I leave. I did want to point out that the cleanup (at least for me) was
> > not that hard. /man and /share were left behind along with a handful of
> > files in /bin that shouldn't have been there. Once I had reverted and
> > installed vim I was able to use something like
> >
> > pkg_info -L -x vim | fgrep /usr/local/bin | sed -e 's|/usr/local||'
> >
> > To find the files which were in /bin that should not have been there.
> > Not all of them were there in my case but the cleanup was easy. Just
> > delete /man and /share and the handful of files in /bin.
> >
> > I still don't know what the real fix for this is but hopefully someone
> > is working on it. ;)
> >
> > -- WXS
>
> Attached is the exact patch that fixes this. The two effected areas are
> post & pre-configure. My best guess on this lays on the REINPLACE_CMD in
> pre-configure but I could be wrong.
You may want to also revert the MAKE_JOBS_SAFE too.
-- 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: editors/vim installs to /
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/17/2010 17:19, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
>>
>> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
>> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
>> installing to / ~! ugh.
>>
>> Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
>
> I reverted to the previous Makefile just to get something working before
> I leave. I did want to point out that the cleanup (at least for me) was
> not that hard. /man and /share were left behind along with a handful of
> files in /bin that shouldn't have been there. Once I had reverted and
> installed vim I was able to use something like
>
> pkg_info -L -x vim | fgrep /usr/local/bin | sed -e 's|/usr/local||'
>
> To find the files which were in /bin that should not have been there.
> Not all of them were there in my case but the cleanup was easy. Just
> delete /man and /share and the handful of files in /bin.
>
> I still don't know what the real fix for this is but hopefully someone
> is working on it. ;)
>
> -- WXS
Attached is the exact patch that fixes this. The two effected areas are
post & pre-configure. My best guess on this lays on the REINPLACE_CMD in
pre-configure but I could be wrong.
- --
jhell,v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMk/cwAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+xukH/2JgWGagRpnvUUjbJfCXetDe
/ahIbbohU+pDmeJ3F6UwcoxPgSd2mW0vRiC+3fFLKi/otAgYqfS+L5X5hMmIoBd1
fgqTeXqy2hF+1IcPdBAIrigxGqv6CA4BmUHYhdMLHV+TVFfboeU70fuBeEYnfsR6
VNYWe8B/0Qb9VNkV+FDFSlvp0Qu4ONkwxPevp/hgTu2914Kd+kmjnLRBTBLekQJ+
KLwXoc1jqoLBwvhT+DRRDFSskNiXjJuAGyt0k10sQpYZCaPwXSXT4mYhjhqDyCnk
uSjxiQe3MK7W1G1QK9RjLOjyMiXbJ8Rv7j6h/pgAoxsegN8xOFryfonRQKp3G44=
=4CXp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--- Makefile.1.357 2010-09-17 18:49:24.188934083 -0400
+++ Makefile 2010-09-17 19:13:22.041265307 -0400
@@ -195,9 +195,6 @@
${REINPLACE_CMD} -e 's,ctags -R \.,${CTAGS_CMD},g')
pre-configure:
- # Fix dependency misspelling so that 'make -j#' will work.
- @${REINPLACE_CMD} -e 's|\./auto/osdef\.h|auto/osdef.h|g' \
- ${WRKSRC}/Makefile
@(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${MAKE} distclean)
@${REINPLACE_CMD} -e ' \
s|\$$gtk_config_prefix/bin/gtk-config|\$${GTK_CONFIG}|g; \
@@ -210,9 +207,6 @@
${WRKSRC}/feature.h
.endif
-post-configure:
- @(cd ${WRKSRC} ; ${MAKE} scratch config)
-
# Clean up junk files to keep them from being installed.
pre-install:
@${FIND} ${WRKSRC:H} -type f -name '*.orig' -delete
Makefile.diff.sig
Description: Binary data
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 13:54, Wesley Shields wrote: > While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing, > do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not > necessary. Let your code speak for itself. > > -- WXS This port has major issues and numerous polite requests (including with patches) to fix them have been summarily ignored or rejected. So don't act surprised when people start to get annoyed by the situation. -- Rob Farmer ___ 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 01:49:37PM -0400, jhell wrote:
>
> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
I reverted to the previous Makefile just to get something working before
I leave. I did want to point out that the cleanup (at least for me) was
not that hard. /man and /share were left behind along with a handful of
files in /bin that shouldn't have been there. Once I had reverted and
installed vim I was able to use something like
pkg_info -L -x vim | fgrep /usr/local/bin | sed -e 's|/usr/local||'
To find the files which were in /bin that should not have been there.
Not all of them were there in my case but the cleanup was easy. Just
delete /man and /share and the handful of files in /bin.
I still don't know what the real fix for this is but hopefully someone
is working on it. ;)
-- 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: editors/vim installs to /
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:21:46PM +0200, David DEMELIER wrote:
> 2010/9/17 jhell :
> >
> > After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> > registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> > installing to / ~! ugh.
> >
> > Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/150649
There's that PR which is probably related but it's a bit light on useful
information.
>
> No,
>
> ${PREFIX} is the good variable to specify the installation directory,
> of course if you set this the port will probably install its files in
> the user-defined ${PREFIX}.
>
> I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
> real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
> that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clean things
> and I think he won't commit it because it won't be enough complicated.
While I agree that editors/vim could use the changes you're discussing,
do you really think such a comment is needed? Attacks like that are not
necessary. Let your code speak for itself.
-- 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: editors/vim installs to /
On 9/17/2010 10:49 AM, jhell wrote:
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
LOCALBASE is where the ports can find things that have been previously
installed. PREFIX is where a port will install into. Personally I've
never seen a valid argument for having 2 separate definitions, but
that's how it has always been.
hth,
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/
___
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: editors/vim installs to /
2010/9/17 jhell :
>
> After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
> registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
> installing to / ~! ugh.
>
> Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
>
> --
>
> jhell,v
> ___
> 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"
>
No,
${PREFIX} is the good variable to specify the installation directory,
of course if you set this the port will probably install its files in
the user-defined ${PREFIX}.
I'm writing the rewrite of the port to update vim to 7.3 and with a
real OPTIONS framework and remove the stupid WITH_VIM_OPTIONS KNOB
that doesn't work. The problem is that David doesn't like clean things
and I think he won't commit it because it won't be enough complicated.
With kind regards,
--
Demelier David
___
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"
editors/vim installs to /
After a force upgrade of vim that had failed unfortunately not
registering the files it installed already I found out that it is
installing to / ~! ugh.
Why is ${PREFIX} being used and not ${LOCALBASE} ???
--
jhell,v
___
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"
