Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 19:12:02 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals Message-ID: <585822F2.2040508@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <6ff9b573-1778-5b5a-5bf5-773d20b72ff5@FreeBSD.org> References: <20161219003143.c2qo5wn3a5kiua3m@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAO%2BPfDeimDrYaz68Msitb_xdnnWfPoWv37AE6teaHZae0nBcRA@mail.gmail.com> <6ff9b573-1778-5b5a-5bf5-773d20b72ff5@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman wrote on 2016/12/19 09:45: > On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: >>> 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. >> > > I really like this idea, although it's going to add a lot of extra > directories and very similar small Makefiles to the ports. Every python > port would grow flavours to support two major versions of python just > for starters, and those additional Makefiles would be almost identical > across the python2 flavour and across the python3 flavour. Can this be processed by some code in Mk/bsd.*.mk? I mean if we can add something to the main Makefile then we don't need to add subdirectories and sub-Makefiles for each Python module port. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?585822F2.2040508>