Jose V Beneyto wrote:
Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi, On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 15:45:32 +0200, Jose V Beneyto wrote:
Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Is there a formal definition of what the "Nice to have" field should contain?
[...]
yeah, it's not official, [...]
The "official" wasn't really where I wanted to go... is there a definition of what should go to the "Nice to have" / "Optional" line? i.e. should only be ports that you can install without changing the build() function, or would you also allow dependencies which would then require the build() function to be adjusted? What if a developer can't test it (i.e. for a non-gnome user, if gnome could be an optional dep), should it be added? What if the developer thinks it's not "nice" to have, although it adds "functionality"? Even with all optional deps, should a port still be simple/debloated, or would you add every possible optional dependency? What about the minimal version, should it be as plain as possible, or provide a set of functionality the packager considers sensible?
TBH I don't know why/who/when this field was introduced. And TBH I don't like it at all. In many cases it's not really maintainable, cause the maintainer isn't able to test all the possible options a program is providing, e.g php or apache. So, keep it simple and don't try to mimic Gentoo's use flag in a strange manner.
I'm not trying to change anything, but the fact is that Pkgfile's have this meta, so I wrote some lines for getting profits, without changing the build() function, this never was my idea.
I'm according to your opinions, but maybe the question is "why Pkgfile's have extra lines, meta or comments", in that case I like more the idea of moving them to the README file and just use prt-get readme for getting more info about ports.
If "Nice to have" / "Optional" are not valid meta's, they should be removed/moved. I think is better take this action than ignore it before the confusion grow up more and more i.e: also "Depends on" actually has more than one valid separator, and it increases a bit this confusion (imho):
package.cpp ... string depends = stripWhiteSpace( getValue( line, ':' ) ); StringHelper::replaceAll( depends, " ", "," ); StringHelper::replaceAll( depends, ",,", "," );
// TODO: decide which one to use
I have chose the space separated method. looks neater and it's easy to hit the period key than the comma key.
Thanks and best regards,
Jose V Beneyto
Regards, Danny Rawlins <Romster>