Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 02:02:23 +0900
From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@iDaemons.org>
To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: 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: <8666bzkdls.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
In-Reply-To: <200108071056.f77Aut564297@vega.vega.com>
References: <no.id> <200108071056.f77Aut564297@vega.vega.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:56:15 +0300 (EEST),
sobomax wrote:
> 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:
It's not just OpenSSL, but we also have successful experience with
USE_PERL5 and USE_NEWGCC.
> a) provides smooth deorbiting path for archivers/bzip2 port;
It doesn't make sense. How can you call your stub port strategy
"smooth deorbiting"?
> 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
You are just being lazy to test. I showed you a concrete patch with
which you can easily check if it breaks something. Just compare the
outputs of `make -V BUILD_DEPENDS -V LIB_DEPENDS -V RUN_DEPENDS'.
> following reasons:
>
> 1) There are still no facilities to test bsd.port.mk changes on;
It is really discouraging to hear that from one of the portmgr's. Why
don't you just make good use of bento clusters? You can change
bsd.port.mk on them and see what happens in the next couple of days.
> 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.)
No rumors, please. We could drop them RIGHT NOW if we want. Ports
Collection no longer officially supports legacy systems like 3.x, and
making those variables nops wouldn't hurt anything.
--
/
/__ __ Akinori.org / MUSHA.org
/ ) ) ) ) / FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp
"Freeze this moment a little bit longer, make each impression
a little bit stronger.. Experience slips away -- Time stand still"
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?8666bzkdls.wl>