Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:56:33 +0900 From: "Akinori -Aki- MUSHA" <knu@idaemons.org> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New variable suggestion: PKGNAMELANGPREFIX Message-ID: <86zolwwle6.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: In your message of "28 Aug 2000 15:44:35 -0700" <vqcvgwl2egc.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> References: <200008270613.XAA20399@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000827105933.C268@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <863djpwbff.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <vqcvgwl2egc.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
At 28 Aug 2000 15:44:35 -0700,
Satoshi Asami wrote:
> This is a generic problem, of a variable (PKGNAMEPREFIX) possibly
> being a concatenation of multiple elements. A generic problem should
> be addressed by a generic solution. Otherwise, we could run in to
> similar problems in the future (for instance, what if there is a port
> that require two non-lang-specific prefixes?)
I was aware of that. My point was that lang-specific prefixes should
be considered as special, which was grounded on the fact that no port
had multiple lang-specific prefixes, and I thought that introducing
PKGNAMELANGPREFIX wouldn't hurt a generic solution for prefixes except
lang-specific ones.
However, on second thought I came to think that a port might have two
lang-specific prefixes at a time. For example, a Russian-to-German
translator could be named de-ru-translator-1.0, or an editor capable
of Chinese, Japanese and Korean could be named zh-ja-ko-editor-1.0.
No? If not, I would still consider lang-specific prefixes as special.
> * The main reason is that the current implementation of PKGNAMEPREFIX
> * forces each port to know/care if the port itself or any of its slave
> * ports is lang-specific.
>
> This is not a problem. A porter surely will know wheter a port has
> slave ports that needs its own PKGNAMEPREFIX. (A master port has to
> be written in a certain way anyway. :)
Not actually. See lang/ruby-man and japanese/ruby-man. See the
recently posted chinese/mutt port. One can easily create a slave port
without touching the master, by adding EXTRA_PATCHES or PATCHFILES and
overriding PKGDIR, FILESDIR, COMMENT, PLIST, or whatever needed.
That's one of the reasons I love ports: flexibility.
It's not desirable that a master port (or its maintainer) has to
bother with the slaves when there is a way to add slaves without
forcing the master to change.
> By the way, if a master port wants to know which language it is
> dealing with, the better way would be to pass an extra variable, not
> overloading PKGNAMEPREFIX. That is what most master/slave ports do
> (RESOLUTION, PAPERSIZE, etc...).
Correct. We should fix japanese/Wnn in that way.
--
/
/__ __
/ ) ) ) ) /
Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ idaemons.org / FreeBSD.org
"We're only at home when we're on the run, on the wing, on the fly"
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?86zolwwle6.wl>