Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:14:03 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net>, "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@FreeBSD.ORG>, Will Andrews <will@csociety.org>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-xfree86@lists.csociety.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-XFree86] Re: FW: cvs commit: ports/x11/XFree86-4 Makefile Makefile.man pkg-plist pkg-plist.alpha pkg-plist.pc98 por Message-ID: <20020319151403.GH22998@squall.waterspout.com> In-Reply-To: <200203190902.g2J92eS04923@vega.vega.com> References: <20020319060110.GA29396@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <200203190902.g2J92eS04923@vega.vega.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ taking -stable off the Cc: list since that was supposed to be ] [ for announcement purposes ] On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:02:40AM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Another slightly different approach is to select one central port, > say XFree86-4-libraries, which would build *all* of XFree86-4, > make other components depend on completion of the build target of > that port and install their portion of XFree86-4 from the central > port's WRKSRC. This approach has many advantages compared to the > current one: That's a good idea, I guess. > - All patches are gathered in one location; This is already true. > - updating of the port to a new version is much simpler - you only need > to update central port and adjust pkg-plist's of all other components. > No need to perform 9 separate updates. Well, the way they tie together is a little complicated. Every part has different needs, and these are reflected in their Makefiles and configure scripts. > The only disadvantage is that when the user only needs one component > he still have to run the full build of XFree86-4, but from my own > experience this is quite unlikely situation, because most users will > just install metaport and forget about it until new XFree86-4 version > is released. > > I would like to hear what FreeBSD XFree86 team think about it. I agree that most people would usually just install all of XFree86, so perhaps your approach doesn't suck that much. However, it does have the disadvantage that it will hurt bento. One of the optimizations of this was that you didn't have to build everything in XFree86 to get what most ports needed: libs. Hmm, I guess the -libraries package wouldn't change so untarring it will be the same, but it does add a little time if every XFree86-4-* package has to build the entire thing. I think it's better if they just share a WRKDIR and do a 'clean' then build their part of XFree86. I'm still waiting for a patch. But I'm willing to listen to other ideas/suggestions. Regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020319151403.GH22998>