Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:52:39 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: blt2.1 Message-ID: <2481.847720359@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:36:38 EST." <Pine.OSF.3.95.961111083006.14784A-100000@modem.eng.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I see, we're taking orthogonal directions. Mine would have a different > package for each set of options, yours would build every possible option. I think it's an important distinction. Let's say (as a very reasonable example) you wanted to make the emacs package dual-use for those with and without X, e.g. provide an emacs binary which doesn't fall over in the absence of X libraries if the user chooses the "NO_X11" version. In your scheme, you'd need to build two completely different emacs packages with replicated lisp libraries, info, the whole whack. Mine would have two flavors, the only files being replicated for each flavor (instead of being hashed to the same entry) being the actual emacs executables which differed. > OK, if you want that direction. Do you include any hackery to allow the > guy who builds his own ports just to build and install the parts he wants? That's a ports issue, not a packaging issue. :-) The port can still be as clever as it wants and not affect any of my stuff, and it's only the "package" target I see changing to any degree in bsd.port.mk. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2481.847720359>