From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun  8 12:42:34 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3152BB3;
 Sun,  8 Jun 2014 12:42:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mailrelay005.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay005.isp.belgacom.be
 [195.238.6.171])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485BB21CA;
 Sun,  8 Jun 2014 12:42:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlsGADVZlFNR8ZR7/2dsb2JhbABYgw2BHoJ5vhyDEQGBAhd1hAMBAQUjMx4FEAkCGAICBSECAg8qHgaIWQGSXpwknwUXgSqNQgeCdYFMAQOaIJNGgXyBQjs
Received: from 123.148-241-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO
 kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([81.241.148.123])
 by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 08 Jun 2014 14:41:23 +0200
Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org
 [127.0.0.1])
 by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s58CfMF7011942;
 Sun, 8 Jun 2014 14:41:22 +0200 (CEST)
 (envelope-from tijl@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 14:41:21 +0200
From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org>
To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Splitting devel/subversion into SEVERAL ports -- how
 fine-grained do we want to see it?
Message-ID: <20140608144121.05779a0e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
In-Reply-To: <102401544.20140608162715@serebryakov.spb.ru>
References: <1438330868.20140608001618@serebryakov.spb.ru>
 <20140608121614.18ab5996@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
 <102401544.20140608162715@serebryakov.spb.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 12:42:34 -0000

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 16:27:15 +0400 Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Tijl.
> You wrote 8 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BD=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 14:16:14:
>=20
> TC> I don't want to stop you from doing this, but if I were you I'd just
> TC> wait for subpackages support.  You may want to merge all those ports
> TC> back into one port then.
>   It is second way. But I didn't seen any estimations about subpackages
> support, and "separate mod_dav_svn" is request which I got twice a month.

Yes, I have some questions about subpackages myself.  For instance, will
a port be able to depend on the subpackage of another port?  Will the
infrastructure be smart enough to build just that subpackage then or will
it build the full package (and all of its dependencies) and then split up
the stage directory?  If a port has to "smart" then you may want to split
subversion up now because you'll need all that logic for subpackages too.