Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 14:41:21 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Splitting devel/subversion into SEVERAL ports -- how fine-grained do we want to see it? Message-ID: <20140608144121.05779a0e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <102401544.20140608162715@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <1438330868.20140608001618@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20140608121614.18ab5996@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <102401544.20140608162715@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 16:27:15 +0400 Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Tijl. > You wrote 8 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BD=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 14:16:14: >=20 > TC> I don't want to stop you from doing this, but if I were you I'd just > TC> wait for subpackages support. You may want to merge all those ports > TC> back into one port then. > It is second way. But I didn't seen any estimations about subpackages > support, and "separate mod_dav_svn" is request which I got twice a month. Yes, I have some questions about subpackages myself. For instance, will a port be able to depend on the subpackage of another port? Will the infrastructure be smart enough to build just that subpackage then or will it build the full package (and all of its dependencies) and then split up the stage directory? If a port has to "smart" then you may want to split subversion up now because you'll need all that logic for subpackages too.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140608144121.05779a0e>