Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:49:51 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency? Message-ID: <52F60BCF.6000701@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <52F607E9.6060505@gmx.de> 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> <52F607E9.6060505@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --8C4DCoAGB0QtW4PgX9o6Jc5xrFFIghNul Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/02/2014 10:33, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.02.2014 11:29, schrieb Matthew Seaman: >=20 >> 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-package= s >> 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 compilin= g >> all the different optional parts of a port regularly, so problems with= >> obscure parts should come to light more quickly. Also the oft repeate= d >> complaint that lang/php5 doesn't enable mod_php5 by default: that goes= away. >=20 > 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? >=20 > I think that pkg-plist is already "decorated" beyond recognition for > some ports with possibly three %%PLIST_SUB_TAG%% on one line. The code hasn't been written yet. Anything is possible. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey --8C4DCoAGB0QtW4PgX9o6Jc5xrFFIghNul Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJS9gvPXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2NTNBNjhCOTEzQTRFNkNGM0UxRTEzMjZC QjIzQUY1MThFMUE0MDEzAAoJELsjr1GOGkAT+WYP/2jxEcK69pse5KaiKAf5yvUG KXqobIbGOOpn4ENlp+3NPgIUhIIs4d36A+9T2nVPPl5mcF6HazeqTOJC22XiBf0t R7NxD+s+916JeOvrwsV0iZKnYV8LrSr54XLuAnvjYUSkU8BWgnx7AYSWKIUq4/m7 icQBF8ajX1yiFrr51Bny563HOAQhorr6nw8/Hw+w6xRmJzrrgMwpsSjEco1HbG34 1oavkgTQ1/vajFDhOHTjhm5gSnVxXwtcGOVjS4K7atB58gOM+uR9Ze3gVE9xzzcT 2DDtY4DrXlMboVhGYCNGQnY2fOV8q+dw95gj20tPyycxoFlXnLplxocwQTybqg10 RMeb1G+EB4srGmHpefBV8xHw5K4uRRudCsfAkdqoH0IJxU6ZwBU+kZSU9L1iPj3s kCDo847c2DJ2cSMfE+/Ye4nXdf3gHREQvKZtMi9cWYP3qq3kNj0u+fcAPp9WEORA L4Jmcqvkh50IafmoxRdptliB7IH9Wgyde0c0vOGMH5PTP4MX2an0hJild6IYM1v3 GRqRmNX/mvToGVIH5C/KNlKZaVV+XOXOKqafY+MsvhWo1DzCrIRR7UPQs58YNrRv dlShNdFeSE18MU+ClPtnCfv+guGWz3IgD/1YgueS1F8rYXTaVaQVQE63eohgJBUt OVbG0HBw0MD4nA1x5q3b =asvg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8C4DCoAGB0QtW4PgX9o6Jc5xrFFIghNul--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52F60BCF.6000701>