Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:10:25 -0900 (AKST) From: rflynn@acsalaska.net To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Zarafa port Message-ID: <1786.46.129.107.107.1328551825.squirrel@mymail.acsalaska.net> In-Reply-To: <b556cf9deafc9a58cc3c9be9c19f373a@bluelife.at> References: <4415.46.129.107.107.1328479605.squirrel@mymail.acsalaska.net> <b556cf9deafc9a58cc3c9be9c19f373a@bluelife.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Bernhard, > Some projects also ship modified versions of a dependency in their > tree. Good > examples for that are multimedia applications depending on ffmpeg. When > they > do a release their modified ffmpeg sources are included in their source > tarball. If that is also the case for zarafa then don't create new > ports for > that but compile the libraries as part of the zarafa port. I decided to go with a slave port for libical as they both use the same version with unmodified sources. It has the best of both worlds, as I can decide down the line to make it it's own port if things stray too far apart from libical upstream or merge it into libical if they don't. The library sources aren't part of the main source tree, just available at Zarafa's site for download with separate patch downloads. Just had the first successful `make configure', so now it's time to look at all the OPTIONal stuff, alter some default paths and what -DOPENBSD can do for us. -- Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1786.46.129.107.107.1328551825.squirrel>