[Default] On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:13:56 +0100, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
>Well, how about phpmyadmin as a for-instance? There are about eight PHP
>modules which phpmyadmin will automagically adapt to the presence or
>absence of at runtime and turn on or off corresponding bits of
> On 19 Sep 2016, at 12:59 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>
> In the end of this story - we are no longer using ports versions for any PHP
> web applications. We are using them directly because ports were more
> problematic.
We use various PHP packages from ports for a larger
Matthew Seaman wrote on 09/19/2016 11:13:
On 09/19/16 08:48, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
The next problem is options doing nothing to "this" port but just pull
some other port as dependency because maintainer thinks it is useful for
the end users to have installed it too - this should be avoided
On 09/19/16 08:48, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> The next problem is options doing nothing to "this" port but just pull
> some other port as dependency because maintainer thinks it is useful for
> the end users to have installed it too - this should be avoided (IMHO).
I must respectfully disagree
Warren Block wrote on 09/16/2016 17:52:
Ports options ask the user to make a decision on whether to enable that
option. Option descriptions are critical for this, giving the user
information to help them make that decision.
Unfortunately, what is clear to the porter is often not clear to a
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Margaret wrote:
[Default] On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 09:47:10 +0100, Mike Clarke
wrote:
For cases where one line comments won't suffice how about providing the facility
to include an extra text file in a port (perhaps "pkg-options") containing
notes
[Default] On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 09:47:10 +0100, Mike Clarke
wrote:
>For cases where one line comments won't suffice how about providing the
>facility
>to include an extra text file in a port (perhaps "pkg-options") containing
>notes about why some particular options
On 2016-09-17 10:47, Mike Clarke wrote:
> On Friday 16 Sep 2016 20:09:06 Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> Even when the meaning is clear in global sense, what are the implications
>> for an application. E.g. "RTC=on: Add support for kernel real time clock"
>> in mplayer. I know exactly what the RTC is,
On Friday 16 Sep 2016 20:09:06 Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Even when the meaning is clear in global sense, what are the implications
> for an application. E.g. "RTC=on: Add support for kernel real time clock"
> in mplayer. I know exactly what the RTC is, but I have no idea why I might
> or might not
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:42 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:11:51 -0400, Jim Ohlstein
> wrote:
>
> >"[S]ome" being the operative word here. I don't disagres with your basic
> >premise, but the truth is, at the end of the day it's up to the user to
>
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:11:51 -0400, Jim Ohlstein
wrote:
>"[S]ome" being the operative word here. I don't disagres with your basic
>premise, but the truth is, at the end of the day it's up to the user to
>understand the consequences of his decisions. If a user doesn't know
Hello,
On 09/16/2016 11:52 AM, Warren Block wrote:
Ports options ask the user to make a decision on whether to enable that
option. Option descriptions are critical for this, giving the user
information to help them make that decision.
Unfortunately, what is clear to the porter is often not
Ports options ask the user to make a decision on whether to enable that
option. Option descriptions are critical for this, giving the user
information to help them make that decision.
Unfortunately, what is clear to the porter is often not clear to a user.
The Porter's Handbook says "Do not
13 matches
Mail list logo