Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 02:54:24 -0800 From: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gd requiring X (was Re: skip requires X?) Message-ID: <20000204025424.B273@shale.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <vqcog9y874y.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from asami@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 10:37:17AM -0800 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002012041440.10588-100000@cornflake.nickelkid.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002012126490.305-100000@picnic.mat.net> <20000201213431.G79328@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000201213227.A279@shale.csir.co.za> <vqcog9y874y.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 10:37:17AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * I'm still working on some of the packing issues. My current plan is to
> * add a PKGNAME suffix, which depends on the highest level of USE_* (ie a
> * port which might use X or X and GNOME, would be known as foo-1.0,
> * foo-1.0-x11 and foo-1.0-gnome).
>
> You can't have anything after the package version number. Something
> like foo-x11-1.0 and foo-gnome-1.0 is fine.
OK, make it difficult then... :-)
Actually I'm tempted to argue this. If the additional suffix is being
added by the ports/packaging system then it allows us to destingish
between a real port and a port with options. ie timidity++-gtk-x.y
would mean there was a audio/timidity++-gtk, while timidity++-x.y-gtk
would imply a audio/timidity++ with WITH_GTK=yes. Also, in the latter
case you would only want one port installed, since they would have most
of their PLIST in common.
> Those can be done on bento also. Just make another port with a
> Makefile that says "WITH_GNOME=yes" and then includes the master port.
Yes, although this will add extra files to the ports tree. grepping for
"^WANT_" in the makefile will mean we could remove some ports, and have
bento take care of the options automatically.
> Figuring out the chain of dependencies could be messy though. We need
> to make sure the user won't end up with a gnome-disabled foo and
> gnome-enabled bar when bar depends on foo (or something like that).
Yes, that the next problem to raise it's head. It's not an easy one to
solve, because you need to upgrade the dependency if it does not have
the support you need. At the moment, the simple solution is the
manual one: If bar *needs* certain features in the foo port,
then those are the default features which are installed, with the user
being given the option of installing less features. It is up to the
maintainers of the foo and bar to decided the meaning of *needs*.
gd is another good example here. Several ports might require it to have
X support to function correctly. Some people don't want that, so they
can build it WITH_X11=no, and not use any ports which need the X
support.
We can't do much better than that until ports/packages are taught to
seek far more detailed information from /var/db/pkg. I don't plan on
building a perfect system now. I want something which works to the
point that we can start to identify real problems down the line, and
solve them then.
Besides, there are bigger fish to fry in ports/packages than to worry
about maybe 10 or so current ports which can be taken care of manually.
In my todo list, these are to have ports depend on the version
information from /var/db/pkg rather than from the makefiles; and, to
make it possible to upgrade ports/packages in place.
Regards,
-Jeremy
--
FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free...
http://www.freebsd.org/
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?20000204025424.B273>