Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 08:47:01 +0100 From: David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals Message-ID: <CAO%2BPfDeimDrYaz68Msitb_xdnnWfPoWv37AE6teaHZae0nBcRA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20161219003143.c2qo5wn3a5kiua3m@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <20161219003143.c2qo5wn3a5kiua3m@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2016-12-19 1:31 GMT+01:00 Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>: > Hi all, > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the ports > tree: flavors and subpackages. > > For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more like a > rework of the slave ports for now: > > Examples available here: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8840 (with the implementation) > and > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8843 > > Design: introduce a 3rd level in the hierarchy and make it work a bit like slave > ports > > pros: > - all slave ports are self hosted under the same directory: easier for > maintenance > - should work with all existing tools > This is what I really wanted for years especially for ports like spell checker. Some are in dedicated categories such as french/aspell while other are in textproc/<lang>-aspell and that's a big mess. OpenBSD ports has something like textproc/aspell/<lang> and that is very nice and clean. If the plan is to do the same, that is definitely a major improvement. > cons: > - hackish: it is not really much more than a slave port > - it adds plenty of new Makefiles :( > > I think anyway this is an improvement > > Next step after that is in would be to extend it to allow some dependency on "I > depend on whatever flavor if port X" > > Subpackages: > Design: > Add a new macro MULTI_PACKAGES > flag plist with an @pkg{suffixofthesubpackage} file > the framework will split the plist into small plist and create all the packages > All variables like COMMENT can be overridden with a COMMENT_${suffixofthesubpackage} > > pros: > - simple and working almost now > - allow to simplify lots of ports > - options friendly (<optionname>_PACKAGE automatically appends a new entry to > MULTI_PACKAGES) > Also lovely as it will probably remove some packages that duplicate a lot the ports tree (-nox11 for example). If I understood correctly that one. > Any comment? Yes, make it real :) And again, thanks for your amazing and regular good work bapt! -- Demelier David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAO%2BPfDeimDrYaz68Msitb_xdnnWfPoWv37AE6teaHZae0nBcRA>