Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:33:13 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? Message-ID: <52F607E9.6060505@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <52F606F0.5090605@FreeBSD.org> References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru> <A136680D-BD8A-4819-9600-6B640AB16ADE@FreeBSD.org> <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st> <1955647943.20140208122042@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F5EB97.5040603@marino.st> <686179459.20140208132425@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F5FAD3.8090001@marino.st> <52F606F0.5090605@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 08.02.2014 11:29, schrieb Matthew Seaman: > Other than getting over the hump of implementing all this, will this > result in a massively increased workload for port maintainers? It > shouldn't. Essentially one port will now generate several sub-packages > instead of one package. This will be automatic: just dividing up the > files from staging into different pkg tarballs according to tags given > in pkg-plist. Tags which frequently already exist according to > OPTIONS_SUB. It also means that in a lot of cases we will be compiling > all the different optional parts of a port regularly, so problems with > obscure parts should come to light more quickly. Also the oft repeated > complaint that lang/php5 doesn't enable mod_php5 by default: that goes away. Consider this a proposal: Will we optionally have an alternate way to mention separate pkg-plist files instead, or just use @package ... @closepackage markers instead of PLIST-SUB markup? I think that pkg-plist is already "decorated" beyond recognition for some ports with possibly three %%PLIST_SUB_TAG%% on one line.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52F607E9.6060505>