Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:08:16 +0200
From:      Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Alan E <alane@geeksrus.net>
Cc:        "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@FreeBSD.org>, Will Andrews <will@csociety.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-xfree86@lists.csociety.org
Subject:   Re: [FreeBSD-XFree86] Re: FW: cvs commit: ports/x11/XFree86-4 Makefile  Makefile.man pkg-plist pkg-plist.alpha pkg-plist.pc98 por
Message-ID:  <3C975460.E2913C5E@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <200203190902.g2J92eS04923@vega.vega.com> <200203191403.g2JE39b07216@wwweasel.geeksrus.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alan E wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 19 March 2002 04:02, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 09:42:05PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> > > >Am I doing something wrong or does,
> > > >
> > > >  # cd /usr/ports/x11/XFree86-4
> > > >  # make
> > > >
> > > >Take a staggering amount of scratch space with the meta-port approach?
> > >
> > > You are not, and it does.
> > >
> > > I suggested and will try to test this week a simple set of patches to
> > > give them all the same WRKDIR and force a clean before each extract. This
> > > should get the space issue taken care of. I can't get to it before Weds
> > > since I'm gonna go see Television tomorrow night (NYC is cool sometimes).
> >
> > Another slightly different approach is to select one central port,
> > say XFree86-4-libraries, which would build *all* of XFree86-4,
> > make other components depend on completion of the build target of
> > that port and install their portion of XFree86-4 from the central
> > port's WRKSRC. This approach has many advantages compared to the
> > current one.
> 
> What if I don't *want* to build all of it? That's the whole reason for the
> miniports. What is the difference between that and the megaport? If I just
> want to rebuild -clients, do I have to build the *whole* thing?

No, IMO the reason for miniports was to allow people install only
those parts of XFree86 which they really need. It is also cleaner from
the POV of packages - user can download only those precompiled
packages which they really want.

> IMO That approach totally defeats what was just done. You've essentially
> said, make it a megaport again, but then fake OpenBSD MULTI_PACKAGES.

I donno what MULTI_PACKAGES is. And I don't think that it really
defeats something, because only small fraction of all users would need
to install only one selected miniport.

-Maxim

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C975460.E2913C5E>