Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:33:20 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: mi@aldan.algebra.com Cc: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: revising the package building (Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/Image Magick Makefile pkg-descr pkg-p list) Message-ID: <20010314093320.A87148@rapier.smartspace.co.za> In-Reply-To: <200103140052.f2E0qGC13849@misha.privatelabs.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:52:15PM -0500 References: <20010313182036.M61859@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <200103140052.f2E0qGC13849@misha.privatelabs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue 2001-03-13 (19:52), mi@aldan.algebra.com wrote: > On 13 Mar, Will Andrews wrote: > = On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:54:20PM -0500, mi@aldan.algebra.com wrote: > = > A lot of ports have WITH and WITHOUT options. Honoring them all with > = > a separate sub-port would explode the ports tree. Think of the > = > amount of permutations of mod_php, ghostscript, or postgresql will > = > have. Is NO_X -- an exception? May be... I'll do what my mentor > = > tells me to. > = > = Will's principle: If it's not your port, it's not your problem. > > It's nobody's :-( ... > > = I dislike creating new directories just for certain options too, but > = the way bento builds packages severely limits our options. There was a > = huge discussion about this last September (see: "ports options paper" > = I wrote), and according to Satoshi some years ago as well. > > Perhaps, bento's script needs to be modified. I'll even say it is > broken, because it assumes the one-to-one relation between ports and > packages. > > It can have a list of "interesting" options, and will try to produce the > name of each package with and without this options (all permutations). > If a new name is obtained -- the port is rebuilt with that option set > and the new package is created -- from the same port. > > This way, the decision, which options are worthy is centralized, but a > port's maintainer can turn the separate package build on and off by > modifying the package name (typicly -- by altering the prefix and/or > suffix). And there is now need to add another port per option. > > How is that? In OpenBSD it's called 'flavors' (Canadians can't seem to spell either). I recreated the ability with the rest of my portconf work way-back-when, but I couldn't get some needed functionality and review, and I got told that "there's no way we'll ever go back to building more than one package from one port. Never ever!". Doing it isn't hard at all; I still have another few weeks left in my "Gad, can't we do anything in ports, it could be so much cooler" apathy mode, so I'd need to be told "Yes, this is a great idea, and we'll put it in if you write it". Doing the same for my old portconf ideas (which included a perl-only component for standard builds, and a nice gtk front-end for graphics-capable build on request) would be useful too. But this needs to come from someone who can commit to bsd.port.mk. (: Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@mithrandr.moria.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010314093320.A87148>