Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:47:03PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: > hmm, on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Paul de Weerd said that > > I did not mean to sneer on 'professional', I apologize if I came > > across sneering. I just do not see this professionalism or consistency > > well one man's consistency is another's chaos. > that's why i asked for comments. > > mystuff is an i'll-think-of-something-later name > someone comes up with at 5am before closing > the notebook lid. Well, I came up with the name, took my about 5 seconds, never thought back, and nobody except you ever protested. It works, it's simple, and we never felt the need to change it. And we won't change it, btw.
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:50:01AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: > hmm, on Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Stuart Henderson said that > > this is ports developer stuff, you already have a lot of things to > > learn as it is, and whatever this is called you still have to learn it. > > adding more names just confuses things, and it's already mentioned in > > various ports tutorials... > > i fully respect everyone's opinion, and if one doesnt like 'local' > or find it as logical as me, no problem. i am aware i can tweak > it myself, but that's another error vector, isn't, making my stuff > (pun intended) unsupported in the ports framework. > > but please stop this "never change stuff because it confuses things" > because then we could just freeze the tree forever and not correct > design decision which after some time proved to be wrong (not this case > mind you, generally). plenty of stuff changes all the time that > are way more confusing (e.g. pf implied defaults, etc etc) please stop making generalizations when the discussion is about specifics. this discussion is about the name of one optional directory in the ports tree. not about all of cvs. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
hmm, on Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 09:46:15PM +0100, Stuart Henderson said that > this is ports developer stuff, you already have a lot of things to > learn as it is, and whatever this is called you still have to learn it. > adding more names just confuses things, and it's already mentioned in > various ports tutorials... i fully respect everyone's opinion, and if one doesnt like 'local' or find it as logical as me, no problem. i am aware i can tweak it myself, but that's another error vector, isn't, making my stuff (pun intended) unsupported in the ports framework. but please stop this "never change stuff because it confuses things" because then we could just freeze the tree forever and not correct design decision which after some time proved to be wrong (not this case mind you, generally). plenty of stuff changes all the time that are way more confusing (e.g. pf implied defaults, etc etc) -f -- every silver lining has a cloud.
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On 2008/10/16 13:38, Clint Pachl wrote: > frantisek holop wrote: >> hi there, >> >> i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know >> it has a lot of history and some people feel very >> fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of >> reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond >> (my computer, etc)... >> >> i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and >> kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). >> >> i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', >> rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal >> 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. >> >> -f >> > > I completely agree. When I first started writing ports, I created > /usr/ports/local because it seemed logical (i.e. /usr/local). Then > later I found out I needed to use /usr/ports/mystuff. No big deal, > however, "mystuff" just seems less conventional than "local" in the > UNIX world. this is ports developer stuff, you already have a lot of things to learn as it is, and whatever this is called you still have to learn it. adding more names just confuses things, and it's already mentioned in various ports tutorials...
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
frantisek holop wrote: hi there, i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know it has a lot of history and some people feel very fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond (my computer, etc)... i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. -f I completely agree. When I first started writing ports, I created /usr/ports/local because it seemed logical (i.e. /usr/local). Then later I found out I needed to use /usr/ports/mystuff. No big deal, however, "mystuff" just seems less conventional than "local" in the UNIX world.
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On 2008/10/16 08:49, Julian Leyh wrote: > frantisek holop schrieb: >> hi there, >> >> i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know >> it has a lot of history and some people feel very >> fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of >> reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond >> (my computer, etc)... >> >> i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and >> kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). >> >> i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', >> rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal >> 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. >> >> -f > > name it what you like, and add it to PORTSDIR_PATH. that's how i do it > (moved the mystuff dir to different location... it's too easy to "rm > -rf /usr/ports"). > $ grep -r mystuff /usr/ports/infrastructure
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
frantisek holop schrieb: hi there, i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know it has a lot of history and some people feel very fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond (my computer, etc)... i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. -f name it what you like, and add it to PORTSDIR_PATH. that's how i do it (moved the mystuff dir to different location... it's too easy to "rm -rf /usr/ports").
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
* Simon Bertrang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081015 14:11]: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 06:47:05PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: > > hi there, > > > > i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know > > it has a lot of history and some people feel very > > fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of > > reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond > > (my computer, etc)... > > > > i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and > > kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). > > > > i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', > > rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal > > 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. > > > > Why? Porting is fun if it's _my_ _stuff_ and otherwise it would have > been added to PORTSDIR_PATH anyways to fit the corporate structure. ;-) > > And i like my stuff! Or where should i dump tons of unfinished ports to? > Finding the string ``mystuff'' in the log output is also _way_ easier > than looking for a ``local''. > > If nothing other else holds true, then i'm just used to it and unwilling > to change without a good reason. > > Regards, > Simon > +1 I've made the mistake of blurring the distinction between mystuff and the rest of the ports tree. I ended up with a Frankenstein mess that made ports work painful. Now I stick to mystuff and I'm happy about it. Adding another directory that behaves like mystuff just opens the door for more confusion. Do some porting and you'll find it's already a target rich environment. Jim
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:47:03PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: > hmm, on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Paul de Weerd said that > > I did not mean to sneer on 'professional', I apologize if I came > > across sneering. I just do not see this professionalism or consistency > > well one man's consistency is another's chaos. > that's why i asked for comments. > > mystuff is an i'll-think-of-something-later name > someone comes up with at 5am before closing > the notebook lid. > This place _is_ IMHO for something at later time, namely to test, import and provide feedback or just finish the damn thing. > but in my quest to prove this naming scheme flawed > i found the following and this makes this discussion > kind of void: > > /usr/share/man/cat5/mygate.0 > /usr/share/man/cat5/myname.0 > > [and of course mysql (ehm)] > > well.. > You can find my stuff at various places :-) Regards, Simon
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 06:47:05PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: > hi there, > > i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know > it has a lot of history and some people feel very > fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of > reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond > (my computer, etc)... > > i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and > kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). > > i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', > rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal > 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. > Why? Porting is fun if it's _my_ _stuff_ and otherwise it would have been added to PORTSDIR_PATH anyways to fit the corporate structure. ;-) And i like my stuff! Or where should i dump tons of unfinished ports to? Finding the string ``mystuff'' in the log output is also _way_ easier than looking for a ``local''. If nothing other else holds true, then i'm just used to it and unwilling to change without a good reason. Regards, Simon
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:47:03PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: | hmm, on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Paul de Weerd said that | > I did not mean to sneer on 'professional', I apologize if I came | > across sneering. I just do not see this professionalism or consistency | | well one man's consistency is another's chaos. | that's why i asked for comments. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson [not saying that your (or my) consistency is foolish though, just felt it appropriately funny] | mystuff is an i'll-think-of-something-later name | someone comes up with at 5am before closing | the notebook lid. Hmm, I hear you there ;) Does not a bad name make, per se, IMO. | but in my quest to prove this naming scheme flawed | i found the following and this makes this discussion | kind of void: | | /usr/share/man/cat5/mygate.0 | /usr/share/man/cat5/myname.0 | | [and of course mysql (ehm)] Although I still don't agree with your suggestion, I also don't agree that these are proper counter examples. Again, the context matters, mygate and myname refer to specific properties of the machine, they're found in /etc/ and have very little to do with the hierarchy under /usr/ports. They make sense on their own and are unrelated to the portstree IMO. They just show that there are more filenames in the filesystem starting with 'my'. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
hmm, on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Paul de Weerd said that > I did not mean to sneer on 'professional', I apologize if I came > across sneering. I just do not see this professionalism or consistency well one man's consistency is another's chaos. that's why i asked for comments. mystuff is an i'll-think-of-something-later name someone comes up with at 5am before closing the notebook lid. but in my quest to prove this naming scheme flawed i found the following and this makes this discussion kind of void: /usr/share/man/cat5/mygate.0 /usr/share/man/cat5/myname.0 [and of course mysql (ehm)] well.. -f -- to learn more about paranoids, follow them around!
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:13:59PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: | > Uhh .. why ? I put my stuff in mystuff .. it's what I'm used to now | > and I dont feel redmondy doing so. It is, as they say, my stuff ;) | | your stuff is your stuff, definitely. but local stuff is local | stuff, that's why we have /usr/local and not /usr/mystuff, innit? You have a point there in that /usr/local/ makes more sense than /usr/mystuff/, but that's for locally installed software that is not part of the base OS install. I think it's quite distinct from whatever lives under /usr/ports. The two don't really compare, IMO. | > Your suggestion would sooner strike me as a new category for | > localization stuff perhaps than a special (incl special handling) | | oh, so /usr/local strikes you as a localization stuff thingie? | i don't think so. Definitely not. But that is in the context of /usr, not in the context of /usr/ports. Below /usr/ports, I find a directory per category plus change (important change, don't get me wrong ;). If I see a directory below /usr/ports I assume it to be a port category directory because most of 'em are. A local/ subdir in my great new super deluxe program kitchensink-1.0/local/ would probably be about localization. Context matters. | perhaps my choice of words was not good. for some reason, | professional is sneered on... how about consistent with other | parts of hier(7)?... I did not mean to sneer on 'professional', I apologize if I came across sneering. I just do not see this professionalism or consistency you speak of. I find mystuff quite consistent for a category name as it is (in the context of categories) quite descriptive .. this is where I find 'my stuff'. | > subtree for 'my stuff'. I dont have any special feelings for the name, | > but it's fine for me as is, no need to change it. | | please read my mail again. no changing, no removing. | adding a new one. and yes, perhaps purely cosmetical too. | but mainly, consistent. Context again. Adding a new one means a change to the infrastructure. Sorry for nitpicking ;) You're right though .. you said adding 'local', still I see no need for it. What does it bring us ? Why is it more consistent ? If I install firefox, it doesn't get installed in /usr/local/www/... because there is a distinction between the hierarchy under /usr and the hierarchy under /usr/ports. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:13:59PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> please read my mail again. no changing, no removing. adding a
> new one. and yes, perhaps purely cosmetical too. but mainly,
> consistent.
And useless. If you want to make this change, go ahead (it's one
line in bsd.port.mk).
> -f
> --
> if people listened to themselves more often, they would shut up.
Agreed.
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| web:...http://www.lfod.us/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*-[ BSD: Live Free or Die ]*
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
hmm, on Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Paul de Weerd said that > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 06:47:05PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: > | hi there, > | > | i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know > | it has a lot of history and some people feel very > | fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of > | reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond > | (my computer, etc)... > | > | i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and > | kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). > | > | i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', > | rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal > | 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. > > Uhh .. why ? I put my stuff in mystuff .. it's what I'm used to now > and I dont feel redmondy doing so. It is, as they say, my stuff ;) your stuff is your stuff, definitely. but local stuff is local stuff, that's why we have /usr/local and not /usr/mystuff, innit? > Your suggestion would sooner strike me as a new category for > localization stuff perhaps than a special (incl special handling) oh, so /usr/local strikes you as a localization stuff thingie? i don't think so. perhaps my choice of words was not good. for some reason, professional is sneered on... how about consistent with other parts of hier(7)?... > subtree for 'my stuff'. I dont have any special feelings for the name, > but it's fine for me as is, no need to change it. please read my mail again. no changing, no removing. adding a new one. and yes, perhaps purely cosmetical too. but mainly, consistent. -f -- if people listened to themselves more often, they would shut up.
Re: mystuff. mystuff?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 06:47:05PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: | hi there, | | i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know | it has a lot of history and some people feel very | fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of | reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond | (my computer, etc)... | | i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and | kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). | | i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', | rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal | 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. Uhh .. why ? I put my stuff in mystuff .. it's what I'm used to now and I dont feel redmondy doing so. It is, as they say, my stuff ;) Your suggestion would sooner strike me as a new category for localization stuff perhaps than a special (incl special handling) subtree for 'my stuff'. I dont have any special feelings for the name, but it's fine for me as is, no need to change it. What benefit would a 'local' (or other new directory name) bring ? More professionalism ? How so ? Please elaborate. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
mystuff. mystuff?
hi there, i was wondering where 'mystuff' comes from... i know it has a lot of history and some people feel very fondly about it, but i can't help that it kind of reminds me the failed naming scheme from redmond (my computer, etc)... i think /usr/ports/local/ is more "openbsd-y" and kind of more "professional" (or perhaps not). i am not asking for changing or removing 'mystuff', rather to consider the addition of 'local' as a legal 'mystuff' directory please share your comments. -f -- raising your voice does not reinforce your argument.
