Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:14:58 +0000 From: Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Option vs. flavor? Message-ID: <CAOc73CAe03AuLsgSvw1TfV7Ke9qLvGJtHpqowvF=KPnMOxOjxg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20171216142849.GL10752@graf.pompo.net> References: <ee10fa7f-9107-1c35-8540-ff34d306865d@rawbw.com> <20171216142849.GL10752@graf.pompo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 at 3:29 am, Thierry Thomas <thierry@freebsd.org> wrote: > Le sam. 16 d=C3=A9c. 17 =C3=A0 2:38:51 +0100, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> > =C3=A9crivait : > > > One port is small by itself, but it semi-optionally requires 4.5GB of > > static data installed. > > > > It is possible to download this data optionally, conditional on the por= t > > option DATA_FILES which will be "off" by default, so that the users who > > need the data will install it with DATA_FILES=3Don. > > > > Alternatively, it is possible to create a flavor, something like > @withData. > > > > > > Should the option be preferred, or should the flavor be preferred? > > I'd say that this is a case for sub-packages. > -- > Th. Thomas. > I believe Sub-packages would normally still download the data for the port build (make fetch), but it would not be included main pkg. The original post was requesting that the port make fetch only downloads the data conditionally based on the option. Not sure how possible that is. Regards, Ben --=20 -- From: Benjamin Woods woodsb02@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOc73CAe03AuLsgSvw1TfV7Ke9qLvGJtHpqowvF=KPnMOxOjxg>