From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 20 07:16:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB84416A4CE; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from postman.arcor.de (postman4.arcor-online.net [151.189.0.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CD443D81; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:14:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-51-21.reverse.qsc.de [212.202.51.21]) (authenticated bits=0)i0KFEFM4003287 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:14:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from [172.16.0.2] (helo=fillmore-labs.com) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1Aixa3-0005eV-7E; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:14:15 +0100 Message-ID: <400D45C4.6040707@fillmore-labs.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:14:12 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH - http://www.fillmore-labs.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marius Strobl References: <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org> <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120140942.GD94636@FreeBSD.org> <20040120160137.A10434@newtrinity.zeist.de> In-Reply-To: <20040120160137.A10434@newtrinity.zeist.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Joe Marcus Clarke cc: Eivind Eklund cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:16:08 -0000 Marius Strobl wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:09:42AM -0800, Eivind Eklund wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:39PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: >> >>>Eivind Eklund wrote: >>> >>>>improvement). And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems >>>>it isn't. That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed >>>>(possibly >>>>not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way. >>>> >>>>Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it >>>>looks to >>>>me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I >>>>thought >>>>we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME). >>> >>>The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not >>>easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk >>>now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, >>>which is bad. Perhaps we should have >>>OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options, >>>which is easier to change. >> >>I don't think this particular name is usable right now - we "need" something >>that falls back to ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, as the OPTIONS system is now >>in production, ports have started to use it[1], and people will have started >>storing options in just a few hours. Unless we can resolve this within >>those few hours, we need to have the same ultimate fallback. >> >>[1] Well, only security/snort so far, so I'm going to ask the committer to >> back that out until the present hoopla is sorted out. >> >>>LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports >>>have the same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway. >> >>Whether they conflict is really immaterial - they shouldn't share options. >> >>>But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or something else, as long as it >>>is easily changeable in the case of conflicts. >> >>PORTNAME? ;-) > > Neither seems appropriate for the default. PORTNAME is not unique among > ports which are only distinguished by their PKGNAMESUFFIX, for example > security/openssh-portable and security/openssh or pretty much any port > where a corresponding "-devel" port exists. Such ports might or might > not share the same set of options with their siblings which share the > same PORTNAME, but at least since CONFLICTS now takes PREFIX into account > they could be installed with different options into different PREFIXes > without conflicting further. > LATEST_LINK on the other hand per default includes PKGNAMESUFFIX so one > would end up with different OPTIONSFILEs for ports which add PKGNAMESUFFIX > based on optional features, think of all the ports that optionally can > be built with support for GNOME and then define "-gnome" as PKGNAMESUFFIX, > so OPTIONSFILE wouldn't be unique per port and defeat its purpose. A lot of ports use -client and -server as a PKGNAMESUFFIX, so it is not clear if it should be considered or not. > I'm not sure what a sane default for OPTIONSFILE would but but it at > least has to be easily overridable which currently isn't given. Yep.