Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:04:28 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: PortsNG (was Re: Ports Options Paper) Message-ID: <20000909120428.U632@radon.gryphonsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20000909161633.A71013@mithrandr.moria.org>; from nbm@mithrandr.moria.org on Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 04:16:34PM %2B0200 References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000909003743.B92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909161633.A71013@mithrandr.moria.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 04:16:34PM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
> I don't think the package format is in the least significant to the
> problem, except possibly the use of zip-like archives to only grab
> headers, and to perform some sort of package signing. These are both
> dealt with in the package format described and implemented in libh
> currently.
I don't think package signing is much related to the project here. If
desired, it can be done as a separate one, with lower priority.
> One unexplored bit of functionality I had in my portconf dashboard a
> year and a half ago required "multiple packages from one port", in that
> it was an auto-explore on all the available options (that affected the
> build) and generating a package with each set of compatible options:
>
> {
> { !foo, !bar, !baz },
> { !foo, !bar, baz },
> { !foo, bar, !baz },
> { !foo, bar, baz },
> { foo, !bar, !baz },
> ...
> }
>
> I think this may be overkill, but it's probably something that can
> easily be implemented in an automatic way, and definitely something that
> can be implemented in a manual way (cf. OpenBSD flavours, portconf
> 'classes') even in the one-port-one-package way.
Yes, that could work. But what if special things need to be done in
order to allow some options to be installed? I.e. you can't just
concatenate two options' modifications to the build; there has to be
something extra to allow them to build together. This would require
something a little more complex than what you showed above. But how
about something like this:
{
EXTRA_TARGET { !foo, !bar, !baz },
{ !foo !bar, baz },
EXTRA_TARGET2 { !foo, bar, !baz },
{ !foo, bar, baz },
{ foo, bar, baz },
EXTRA_TARGET3 { foo, !bar, !baz },
}
or something similar, in a manner that would allow us to denote an extra
target that needs to be performed. But then, there's another problem.
What if there needs to be multiple targets, performed at different
times? And so on..
> The way things usually work is:
>
> a) You provide thoughts, and no code, and you're told you're just
> talking hot air, and that you're an arm-chair general, and that you
> don't understand all the implications;
>
> b) You provide the code, but no documentation, and you're told that the
> change requires documentation and a design document, and that you're
> just hacking, and that without the design doc, you can't possibly
> understand all the implications;
>
> c) You provide code and documentation, and you get no feedback.
d) You know what you're doing, and everyone says so, and things get
committed in a drive-by commit (poor -current ;). ;->
e) c) plus you get feedback, things get done, and it finally happens.
I'd like to aim for e) here folks. Don't nobody dare avoid me. ;)
--
Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> <will@FreeBSD.org>
GCS/E/S @d- s+:+ a--- C++ UB++++$ P+ L- E--- W+ N-- !o ?K w---
O- M+ V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X+ R+ tv+ b++ DI+++ D+
G++ e>++++ h! r- y?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000909120428.U632>