Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:56:15 +0300 (EEST)
From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: knu@iDaemons.org (Akinori MUSHA)
Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG (Maxim Sobolev), portmgr@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nakai@FreeBSD.ORG, dr@domix.de, demon@FreeBSD.ORG, gnome@FreeBSD.ORG, mi@aldan.algebra.com, ijliao@FreeBSD.ORG, andreas@FreeBSD.ORG, roman@xpert.com, greg@hewgill.com, jedgar@FreeBSD.ORG, jmz@FreeBSD.ORG, samy@goldmoon.org, dirk@FreeBSD.ORG, kanou@mil.allnet.ne.jp
Subject: Re: Introducing USE_BZIP2{CMD,LIB,RUN} and BZIP2BASE
Message-ID: <200108071056.f77Aut564297@vega.vega.com>
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Akinori MUSHA" at Aug 07, 2001 07:31:12 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > At Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:03:09 +0300 (EEST), > sobomax wrote: > > I do not see any problems with retiring bzip2 port in my variant - > > when the time has came just remove archivers/bzip2 and its traces > > in RUN/LIB/BUILD_DEPENDS of various ports. The former is common > > for both scenarios, while you have to do the latter at the beginning > > of your scenario anyway (i.e. convert RUN/LIB/BUILD_DEPENDS into > > various USE_*). > > 1. It's still uglier. We don't need such kind of kludgy symlinks. > Introducing BZIP2BASE is cleaner and matches the reality. > > 2. USE_BZIP2 implies EXTRACT_SUFX=.tar.bz2 and EXTRACT_CMD=bzip2 but > which are sometimes unwanted. Introducing USE_BZIP2CMD will solve > this cleanly. > > 3. It'd be better to be consistent with what we are doing for OpenSSL. > > 4. You didn't object but agreed when we changed bsd.port.mk not to > depend on archivers/bzip2 if the system has /usr/bin/bzip2. I still think that it is unneded complication. OpenSSL can't be an example here, because it is likely that in the foreseable future we will have to cope with the fact that the OpenSSL is disableable component of the base system (yes, I know that US export restrictions have been lifted, but there are still import restrictions in the number of states). This is untrue for bzip2 - it is not an optional component, so we have to chose solution that meets the folowing criterias: a) provides smooth deorbiting path for archivers/bzip2 port; b) relatively easy to test and implement; c) doesn't create false user's perception that bzip2 dualism is here for ages. Your proposal doesn't comply with (b) and (c) above, because of the following reasons: 1) There are still no facilities to test bsd.port.mk changes on; 2) past experience shows that there is a significant resistance for removing support for obsolete options from bsd.port.mk (think about USE_NEWGCC, USE_PERL5 etc.) -Maxim 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?200108071056.f77Aut564297>