Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 11:44:00 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: hetzels@westbend.net Cc: jeh@FreeBSD.ORG, sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, joseph@randomnetworks.com, lioux@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www Makefile ports/www/frontpage-es Makefiledistinfo pkg-comment Message-ID: <200112291644.fBTGi3f50093@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <00b701c19036$21e6eba0$11fd2fd8@westbend.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 Dec, Scot W. Hetzel wrote: > While one port for the FrontPage Web Admin pages would be ideal, > how would bento build it (all languages, default language, one > package/language)? Something needs to be done to Bento to be able to build multiple packages from the same port. This is another task altogether. After all, Bento is not part of the FreeBSD distribution -- it is our "in-house" project. > There are only 13 language specific FrontPage Web Admin ports > (w/support for 15 languages) (www/frontpage-<lang>). Which have a > RUN_DEPENDS on the FrontPage Extention port (www/frontpage). How about making them into frontpage-i18n (or something), a'la kde2-i18n? > No need to re-build the FrontPage Extentsion port with the language of > your choice. Also, allows you to install additional or remove > FrontPage Web Admin language packages . Makes sense. If only we weren't so fixated on the pre-built packages, there'd be nothing to talk about. > The frontpage-<lang> ports are not slave ports of frontpage port. > They are slave ports to the first FrontPage Web Admin port > (www/frontpage-ar). Ok, thanks. Pardon my ignorance. What I really meant to say, is they should all be made into one port -- with options, just like kde2-i18n (or php, or ghostscript). Unless, of course, we are in a race to hit a certain port-number growth target :-) > As the maintainer, I feel that this is currently the only way to get > packages built for each of the FrontPage Web Admin pages ports. And to me this "only way" is not an acceptable one either :-) That's my only point from the beginning of this tiring thread... > Something like: > @comment PORT_BUILD_OPTION=%%PORT_OPTIONS%% No, a whole "language" will need to be devised -- using make's variables to describe which options exist, and whether they are mutually exclusive (radio buttons) or lists or on/off, etc... During interactive builds, the bsd.ports.mk will also be able to use this to inform the user of the possible options (some ports do it themselves now). But this is off-topic -- it is up to the "Bento team" to devise the new scheme -- the existing "one package per port" one is insufficient. -mi 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?200112291644.fBTGi3f50093>