Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:28:20 +0100 From: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Freebsd Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Example for port which needs to run php-composer? Message-ID: <5d449074-6a75-4e69-a0a9-de1640ff9498@madpilot.net> In-Reply-To: <699c900598d02bf43c8c506e87a75b9e@Leidinger.net> References: <43086cf9d76027a50a0b6d2329601a30@Leidinger.net> <a7baad94-ee5b-4dcd-a9a7-dffdd3fd47ed@madpilot.net> <06cd2a94e7a8690a5912f4a3239c9d5c@Leidinger.net> <6dc882c8-901d-4990-b3b5-8dee969fb9c4@madpilot.net> <699c900598d02bf43c8c506e87a75b9e@Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/12/23 11:21, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Am 2023-12-11 21:19, schrieb Guido Falsi: > >> I gave you suggestions on how to work around these >> (properties|features|limitations|rules|whatever) of the ports tree. I >> would be more interested to hear if you found those useful or not. > > Distributing the dependencies as an additional tarball via the FreeBSD > commiters local distfiles feature is a possible workaround to the > problem. If I want to go that way... I haven't decided yet. It would I agree it is not idea, but given the nature of tools like composer and npm I don't think there is any other option. > shift the responsability for those to me (as a maintainer), or to us (as > a project), compared to having the dependencies as separate ports (as a > maintainer I would at least get the benefit of > portscout/repology/freshports mails) or bundled by the author of the > software I want to port. Depending on the upstream project practices, they could be distributing a lock file, so you would be distributing whatever they "locked" at release time, which is the intended use for dependency manager lock files. -- Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5d449074-6a75-4e69-a0a9-de1640ff9498>