From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Sep 27 13:48:16 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00514E048F5 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:48:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from madpilot@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.madpilot.net (grunt.madpilot.net [78.47.145.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B2D73C2C; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:48:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from madpilot@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail (mail [192.168.254.3]) by mail.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3y2K0F1CLlzZrX; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:48:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.madpilot.net ([192.168.254.3]) by mail (mail.madpilot.net [192.168.254.3]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WqNVw-EntP8; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:48:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from marvin.madpilot.net (micro.madpilot.net [88.149.173.206]) by mail.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:48:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [HEADUP] FLAVORS landing. To: Julian Elischer , Stefan Esser , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <91d1252c-5398-dca8-f337-959fa722efc7@freebsd.org> <5f2632cd-4c7c-c1e3-d4f9-292c5cfe90a1@freebsd.org> From: Guido Falsi Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:48:10 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:48:16 -0000 On 09/27/2017 15:24, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 27/9/17 8:17 pm, Stefan Esser wrote: >> Am 27.09.17 um 13:52 schrieb Julian Elischer: >>> On 27/9/17 4:20 pm, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> >>> Before this gets too far down the road I would like to suggest that we >>> quickly formalise some nomenclature >>> or we will have 200 different ideas as to how to do the same thing; >>> >>> I would like to propose the following possible "examples of official" >>> flavours: >>> -nodocs         ..  nearly every port has a DOCS option..  a way to >>> automatically turn it off globally and generate said pkgs would be good. >>> -minimal ..  smallest possible feature set.. probably used just to >>> satisfy some stupid dependency. >>> -kitchensink    ..  speaks for itself .. options lit up like a christmas >>> tree >>> -runtime        ..  no .a files, include files, development >>> documentation or sources .. >>>                      might only contain a single libxx.so.N file, or a >>> single binary executable. >> No, these are no good examples for flavours, as I understand them ... > why not? > > that's part of the problem here. It's not really defined.. > sub packages?  flavours?  what's the difference? While it's not well defined there's a simple euristics which can be applied: Can two packages be obtained from a single build process of the ports? yes -> subpackages this applies when the produced binaries and other parts are the same with and without a specific option. The only differentiating thing is if specific files are included or not in the resulting package. doc/nodoc usually falls in this category. no -> flavour this can happen because changing the options actually changes the produced binaries and the libraries it links too, so I need to build the port two times with different options. x11/nox11 usually falls in this category. There can be grey areas I bet... -- Guido Falsi