From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Sep 8 23:11:51 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EE037B61A; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id XAA18416; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:10:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:10:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Steve Price Cc: Will Andrews , ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper In-Reply-To: <20000909010404.D92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Steve Price wrote: > This would only work if you could get 'make describe' to spew out > multiple entries for a single port. More specifically the package > building machines will generate one package per entry in the INDEX > file. Right now since one port creates a single entry, you'll get > one package per port. Consequently for what you are saying to work > each port that could generate more than one package must generate > more than one INDEX entry. I'm not saying this isn't possible, > just that unless we want to deal with a more manual process for > building packages you have to take the package building machines > into consideration. Could there be added an extra field to the INDEX which contains a list of options the package should be built with, like |...other index stuff...|WITH_FOO,WITH_BAR,WITH_FOO+BAR the port makefile would then take care of giving the package a different name for each of the 3 cases, a la Will or whatever. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message