dspam install
in [Ports]
|
From: Sahil Tandon on 13 Jul 2010 18:28 [mail/dspam maintainer Cc:'d] On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:46:04 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: > 2010/7/13 Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)freebsd.org>: > > On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 21:28:56 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: > > > >> .if defined(WITH_MYSQL) > >> WANT_MYSQL_VER= 55 ... > >> .endif > >> > >> Then if the user wants a different version he still can change using : > >> WITH_MYSQL_VER= 44. > > > > That change by itself will not work because in bsd.database.mk: > > > > .if defined(WITH_MYSQL_VER) && ${WITH_MYSQL_VER} != ${WANT_MYSQL_VER} > > IGNORE= ... > > Then, explain me why do both php5 and php5-pgsql have not > KNOBS/OPTIONS like dspam and work with this variable WITH_PGSQL_VER ? This is a good opportunity for you to learn about how the ports system works. Compare the contents of both ports and also review bsd.database.mk; if, after that, you still do not understand the current behavior, let us know. > Because I meant, if someone made these KNOBS, that's would suppose > they should be used. As shown just above it works with php5-pgsql. > > So if a variable could be used to specify a specific version, it must > be used instead of a couple of option that set the package version. I > think WITH_MYSQL_VER and WITH_PGSQL_VER were made for that. (There is > one for apache too) I appreciate your frustration, but please realize that there are often many ways to accomplish the same task. Trade-offs are involved. If you believe a port can be improved, please (and now I'm repeating myself) submit a patch! If you are unable to create a patch, then clearly explain your idea in pseudo-code and submit it as a PR for the maintainer's consideration. If you have trouble creating a patch, also feel free to ping me off-list; I'm happy to work with you on this. > >> We must make a big KISS cleanup in the ports tree to make it as good > >> as NetBSD' pkgsrc. > > > > Please send PRs or provide specific details; general comments like the > > above are not helpful. > > Yes sometime I'm nasty with people, I'm sorry about that but when I > saw this port I just didn't understand. What did you not understand? > I apologize for my english. No apology needed, as that is not the problem here. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)FreeBSD.org> _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
From: Jim Pazarena on 14 Jul 2010 12:00 Sahil Tandon wrote: > [mail/dspam maintainer Cc:'d] > > On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:46:04 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: > >> 2010/7/13 Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)freebsd.org>: >>> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 21:28:56 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >> Yes sometime I'm nasty with people, I'm sorry about that but when I >> saw this port I just didn't understand. > > What did you not understand? > >> I apologize for my english. > > No apology needed, as that is not the problem here. my own ports confusion (in general) is that in some ports you use a "-Dxxxxxx" to define a required (or not required) option while in others (at least dspam) you use WITHOUT_xxx or WITH_xxx=1. It would be nice if all ports has the same standard of definitions. Or... am I confused? _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
From: David DEMELIER on 14 Jul 2010 12:36 2010/7/14 Jim Pazarena <fports(a)paz.bz>: > Sahil Tandon wrote: >> >> [mail/dspam maintainer Cc:'d] >> >> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:46:04 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >> >>> 2010/7/13 Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)freebsd.org>: >>>> >>>> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 21:28:56 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >>> >>> Yes sometime I'm nasty with people, I'm sorry about that but when I >>> saw this port I just didn't understand. >> >> What did you not understand? >> >>> I apologize for my english. >> >> No apology needed, as that is not the problem here. > > my own ports confusion (in general) is that in some ports > you use a "-Dxxxxxx" to define a required (or not required) option > while in others (at least dspam) you use WITHOUT_xxx or WITH_xxx=1. > It would be nice if all ports has the same standard of definitions. > > Or... am I confused? If FreeBSD people agree, KNOBS will be removed in the future (but this will take a long long time). -- Demelier David _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
From: Greg Larkin on 14 Jul 2010 12:46 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Pazarena wrote: > Sahil Tandon wrote: >> [mail/dspam maintainer Cc:'d] >> >> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 09:46:04 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >> >>> 2010/7/13 Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)freebsd.org>: >>>> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 21:28:56 +0200, David DEMELIER wrote: >>> Yes sometime I'm nasty with people, I'm sorry about that but when I >>> saw this port I just didn't understand. >> >> What did you not understand? >> >>> I apologize for my english. >> >> No apology needed, as that is not the problem here. > > my own ports confusion (in general) is that in some ports > you use a "-Dxxxxxx" to define a required (or not required) option > while in others (at least dspam) you use WITHOUT_xxx or WITH_xxx=1. > It would be nice if all ports has the same standard of definitions. > > Or... am I confused? I don't know of any ports that use -Dxxx to specify options at the port level. If the port Makefile uses an "OPTIONS=" variable, then it will use WITH_xxx and WITHOUT_xxx to check the option values. You can also use WITH_xxx and WITHOUT_xxx checks without defining OPTIONS. It's possible that a port Makefile could do something like this: ..if defined(WITH_FOOBAR) CFLAGS+= -DHAVE_FOOBAR_H ..endif In this case, the -Dxxx option is specific to the application configuration and/or build system, but not part of the ports infrastructure. Hope that helps, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFMPeoB0sRouByUApARAib8AKCxHFtzNdvWmptZRiyjTY/BD39nNQCgpgnB hbE7yT1lBq5OrbwIgaCifYA= =uIbz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
From: Warren Block on 14 Jul 2010 13:09
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Jim Pazarena wrote: > my own ports confusion (in general) is that in some ports > you use a "-Dxxxxxx" to define a required (or not required) option > while in others (at least dspam) you use WITHOUT_xxx or WITH_xxx=1. > It would be nice if all ports has the same standard of definitions. > > Or... am I confused? The two methods have the same result. For example: cd /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3 make -V WITHOUT_MOZILLA Shows nothing, since that variable is undefined by default. Using -D tells make to define it, which it does by setting it to "1": make -DWITHOUT_MOZILLA -V WITHOUT_MOZILLA 1 Manually setting the variable to a value also defines it: make WITHOUT_MOZILLA=1 -V WITHOUT_MOZILLA 1 make WITHOUT_MOZILLA=yes -V WITHOUT_MOZILLA yes The Makefiles usually only care about whether a WITH_ variable has been defined, not the actual value, so the result is the same. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org" |