Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:37:40 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> Cc: Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net>, "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@FreeBSD.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: <3C975B44.B4887EC0@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020319060110.GA29396@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <200203190902.g2J92eS04923@vega.vega.com> <20020319151403.GH22998@squall.waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Will Andrews wrote: > > [ 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. Ok, just tried to feed some ideas in. I glad to see that XFree86 team is concerned about excessive disk space now needed to build XFree86-4 metaport and plans to fix the problem soon one way or another, because this is what I really care about, not particular way you would select to achieve that goal. -Maxim 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?3C975B44.B4887EC0>