The GNOME meta-port

[Jens Rehsack]

Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 12:33, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> 
> [My soapbox elided]
> 
> 
>>Ok, I can follow you so far, but:
>>I don't think the only instant-workstation could be a kde one.
>>Ok, I was slightly advanced to FreeBSD when I decided to install it
>>on my desktop, but eg. people coming from OS/2 will feel more like
>>home on a GNOME desktop. So an instant-gnome-workstation and a move
>>of instant-workstation to instant-kde-workstation is not impossible
>>(and would make sense, maybe). But it's on another discussion.
>>
>>And greg's opinion to what's belonging to a meta-port or not
>>is very interesting. He didn't update his instant-server, even
>>squid-2.5 became the STABLE-release.
>>
>>What I'm trying to say: meta-ports are fine and great for easy use,
>>but the users should have the chance to request changes to the
>>default. In the case of x11/gnome2 they had to ask the gnome
>>developers, 'cause the defauls came from there. But if it's a
>>freebsd own meta-port (as instant-workstation is), the freebsd users
>>should have a chance to request for changes. So, x11/gnome2 and
>>misc/instant-workstation aren't fair comparable.
> 
> I think you'll find it as difficult to convince Greg to modify his
> meta-port as it would be to convince GNOME ;-).

That's bad to hear. I thought, FreeBSD's maintainers should be
progressive people? But several mails I sent to greg must be
get's lost on the way into sth. like a black hole :-)
So it seems you're right.

But maybe a new meta-port like instant-gnome-workstation isn't
something greg wouldn't reject (as long he doesn't have to maintain
it). I'll think about it and send a mail when I think it's grown
enough (to get instantly told what I've not seen/respected).

>>>My point is that meta-ports are geared more toward newbies.  Advanced
>>>users can bypass the meta-port, and install only the bits they want. 
>>>Really advanced users (or admins doing bulk installations) can build
>>>their own meta-ports to easy the task of reinstallation.
>>
>>Maybe a message should be added to such meta-ports which says:
>>This is a default meta-port which is for generic use only.
>>If you want to customize your workstation, you should create
>>your own one by copying this meta-port into
>>ports/local/your-own-meta-port and modify whatever you want.
>>
>>Ok, not in this words, but maybe this could really make sense to
>>a) avoid future discussions like this (because the submitter
>>    disn't search for the right words in the archives), and
>>b) it's just an instruction for users which will become
>>    more advanced of what to do.
> 
> 
> I like this idea.  Perhaps this is something that should go into the FAQ
> as well.  Are you volunteering to write something up?

I don't really understand. Do you mean: me - an absolute unpolite
guy - should write a port message which guides other nuts like me
how to customize their meta-ports? And  you want me to write even
a similar message for the FAQ?

I can give it a shot - not next few weeks, but at least after I
did finally test the patches for mga and x-server eric sent to me.

Best,
Jens