Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:24:40 +0100 From: Gergely Czuczy <gergely.czuczy@harmless.hu> To: Kozlov Sergey <kozlov.sergey.404@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re-inventing the FreeSWITCH port Message-ID: <53087AE8.9050503@harmless.hu> In-Reply-To: <52F8CDAE.2090109@gmail.com> References: <52F8CDAE.2090109@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Personally I think one port with lots of OPTIONS might be the best, like how apache or nginx does it. Just my tuppence. Regards, Gergely On 2014.02.10. 14:01, Kozlov Sergey wrote: > Hi everyone. > > I'm working on re-inventing the FreeSWITCH port. The previous FreeSWITCH > port was deleted not so long ago and the current -devel variant is outdated. > > I've already ported and patched some relatively simple ports, but > FreeSWITCH is completely different case. > The software consists of the core (which is pretty useless alone) and > 151 modules which add functionality to the core, 45 of which are > considered the default packaging. > > The main questions are: > > 1. What architecture is the best for this kind of port? > The options are: > a. Create one freeswitch-core port, 151 freeswitch-mod_foobar ports > and a freeswitch metaport which will bring in the core and all the > modules from the default packaging? > b. Create one freeswitch port with 151+ options and default > packaging modules declared as default options > c. Option (b) with the freeswitch-full MASTERDIR port which installs > all the modules > d. Your option > > 2. When should I post the first version of the port? > The thing is that every module needs it's own distfiles, dependencies, > patches, plist entries and so on. Every module needs as much effort as a > small port, and thoughts that i need to properly write options, patches, > plist entries and everything else for 151 modules drive me crazy. Now > I've managed to correctly build the default packaging. If I used option > (b) from the first question then I could create the freeswitch port > without options, a static plist and post it right away, making all the > changes afterwards. This will create a freeswitch binary package which > will be ready to use and won't change much later. > > 3. Testing the port. > The complexity of this port makes me think it will be full of build > errors, which will produce suboptimal or broken binaries. How to ask to > consider this port experimental? Should I only write the warning message > in pkg-message or maybe something else? > > Any help is greatly appreciated. > > Best regards, > Kozlov Sergey. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53087AE8.9050503>