From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Mon Oct 24 10:34:25 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ABCC1F1D2
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:34:25 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz)
Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C49BB73
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:34:25 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz)
Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E7428453;
 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:34:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz
 [86.49.16.209])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71BF928450;
 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:34:16 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Advise requested when a repo split occurs
To: Ultima <ultima1252@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
References: <CANJ8om5eVd6bFQ1rpPTc_kLjgaF-H-aNAZOT-YNsvZfQ5tuiBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>
Message-ID: <580DE3A7.3080908@quip.cz>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:34:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANJ8om5eVd6bFQ1rpPTc_kLjgaF-H-aNAZOT-YNsvZfQ5tuiBA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:34:25 -0000

Ultima wrote on 2016/10/22 21:14:
>   Hello,
>
>   Some what recently a couple of the ports I maintain split into two, one
> being -server, and the other being -client. The code was more or less
> cloned then removed some make args/files that one would be used to enable
> both.
>
>   Currently the code is so similar it would be possible to create a slave
> port and use the same patches, makefile and plist with minimal changes,
> however I have no idea the direction this split may go and this maybe short
> lived. So onto my topic for this post.
>
> Would it be better to create a new port with mostly duplicate code and
> remove/add the little changes required? Or as previously stated make a
> slave port and use the common code.
>
> I am struggling to decide on this and would appreciate opinions.

I think it is fine to use slave port first. See some databases like 
MySQL or PostgreSQL.

When server and client will diverge too much in the future, you can 
rework it as too separate ports.

Miroslav Lachman