Re: Configure line of PHP 5.1 port

"Ant-1" <[email protected]> writes:
>OK, I'll do it. Do this file get erased after an upgrade ? If this is
>the case, can I chmod it 444 without the port installer screaming ?
>
Good point.  If you edit the local copy and then do a 'port selfupdate' it
would get overwritten.  I only do that for quick and dirty mods I want to
test very quickly.  To avoid this for extended tests or what have you,
just create you own local repository, say in ~/dports and edit the file
${prefix}/etc/ports/sources file.  Put the line:

file:///Users/myname/dports (or maybe ~/dports would work too).  But make
sure the line is *above* the entry for rsync.  That way the local copy of
the portfile will get installed when do do a 'port install foo'.  Port
search foo will show two foo's if the local copy duplicates a port
existing in the global repository but it doesn't hurt anything.
>
>>  As for making
>> options that prove to be useful for you in the port repository for all
>to
>> have, that requires some haggling with maintainers and/or users who
>might
>> or might not share the same views on the utility of the additions. 
>> Generally speaking we like to keep the number of variants at a minimum,
>> and some in our user base might not be as technical as the general Unix
>> crowd, so we don't favor a "support all options possible approach" which
>> might seem to go slightly against the grain of a typical Unix user
>base. 
>> We tend to support an approach that enables by default the set of
>options
>> that we think will meet the needs of the great majority of our user
>base,
>> and a variant or two if necessary to catch the remainder, the fewer the
>> better. 
>
>OK, I understand this approach, it's Mac OSX after all. I came to this
>OS precisely because I was a little bit fed up with the endless
>configurations of Linux, so I very much respect your point of view ;)
>As long as I get the possibility to tweak here and there when I want to,
>I'm fine with defaults.

We also respect the point of view of Linux saavy folks.  I'm was just
trying my best to characterize the current preferences as I think they are
now, because sometimes that helps to know.  But I don't presume to speak
for the community, and generalities are always dangerous anyway.  If you
see options you think make sense by all means argue for their inclusion. 
We don't want to restrict people's options, just provide as much
simplicity as is practical with all the options available.  But pragmatic
concerns and functionality usually rule the day and necessarily so.
>
>> I also don't understand the real world benefit of a PDO option
>> (or including it by default) and why people would use it because I just
>> don't know about it and I'd like to hear more about it.
>
>Acutally, I'm not searching for a shared PDO, but for the sqlite driver
>for version 3. I did not realize you disabled PECL and PEAR, so I
>thought havind PDO shared could be a bonus, but in fact all I need is
>the latest sqlite driver integrated to PDO. In my opinion, sqlite
>support and press coverage is growing, so it could be a default in the
>port. sqlite is a fine DB manager especially suitable for beginners and
>small web apps creators. Of course if you build it into the port, maybe
>you could have a port for sqlitemanager, and it could just open a
>pandora box of sort :D
>
>But I'll do my own variants through configure.args and I'll be fine.

I hope in trying to help introduce you to the community by my
generalizations, I haven't given the impression that we or I don't like
options.  As you can see, the PHP maintainer is open to the inclusions you
suggested.  If it makes PHP more useful in general it is a good thing.

Mark