Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:07:38 +0100 From: Ade Lovett <ade@demon.net> To: hoek@hwcn.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <E0wunGs-0000CE-00@genghis.eng.demon.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 18:59:08 EDT." <Pine.GSO.3.96.970802185600.1324B-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Vanderhoek writes: > >Basically, we have this already modulo a idealisms you threw in. >:) Your example #2 is the meta-port concept that I mention. A >couple new features in bsd.port.mk would be wanted, but the major >groundwork is laid in the existing ports system. Well, it was the "meta-port" label that concerned me, so I'm looking for a bit of clarification, that's all. Rather than implement a meta-port concept, which does nothing but bundle ports together, we add in (a) the idea that a port may not build anything itself, and (b) the idea of dependencies in both source *and* binary form. For example: port-A only has a list of dependencies (port-B) port-B builds something itself, and also depends on port-B1 and port-B2 port-B1 only available in /binary form (say it's a simple list of configuration files) port-B2 available in both /source and /binary form, no need to grab the /source form if the /binary is already present on the system -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Demon Internet Ltd.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0wunGs-0000CE-00>