Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:17:56 +0200 From: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADUP] FLAVORS landing. Message-ID: <5f2632cd-4c7c-c1e3-d4f9-292c5cfe90a1@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <91d1252c-5398-dca8-f337-959fa722efc7@freebsd.org> References: <dcc6fa75-8325-01e9-4a86-e3bc61bb27a2@FreeBSD.org> <b964b742-389d-a4e6-0f5f-f30f976d79bd@freebsd.org> <a236f275-4cff-72d1-7d90-955a43062458@FreeBSD.org> <c7e8a348-0b17-d5e8-bf8d-e499c813f8d7@arved.at> <e7cfc564-3c59-e21d-2586-89436a3abb38@FreeBSD.org> <91d1252c-5398-dca8-f337-959fa722efc7@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 ... These are possible typical sub-package categories, or rather you could remove the DOCS from the base port, but offer a sub-package for them. I'd rather think that NO-X11 might become a typical flavour, or the dependency on a particular crypto library (e.g. openssl vs. libressl). Regards, STefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f2632cd-4c7c-c1e3-d4f9-292c5cfe90a1>