Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:00:47 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r437145 - in head/devel: . py-jedi py3-jedi Message-ID: <20170329180047.GA48105@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4469A4DC-B4C5-4001-A28C-15CEDD60F42C@adamw.org> References: <201703281759.v2SHxQlx007752@repo.freebsd.org> <20170328182217.GA9248@FreeBSD.org> <4469A4DC-B4C5-4001-A28C-15CEDD60F42C@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 06:49:02PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 28 Mar, 2017, at 12:22, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > ... > > Seeing a number of these quite similar commits (usually setting MASTERDIR > > and USES[?]=) I'm wondering if this issue can be addressed globally rather > > than copying each individual port with `py3-' prefix? That is, framework > > could produce one or two packages depending on certain condition from the > > same `category/py-foo' port. > > You're talking about subpackages, i.e. building multiple packages off of > the same port (similar ideas for perl modules, apache mods, etc.). I've always wanted to have subpackages (in fact, we have prepared English translation of the original "Ports Proposals" 2011 paper by skv@ for bapt@, which discussed option presets specifically), but this time I was thinking perhaps it could be hacked in an ad-hoc for Python support only. Now more I think about it more I agree that that was a naive thought and we do need real subpackages after all. :-/ > Baptiste has done lots of work on it, but it's not ready yet. There are > some phabricator reviews about it. Yeah, I've seen the links (D8840 and D8843, I presume)? They kind of went away from my radar so I didn't review and comment on them in time, but I plan to, thanks for the reminder. > It's expected to break portmaster and portupgrade, unless they are > updated to handle the changes, so the sooner end-users can be convinced > to switch to poudriere or synth, the easier subpackages will be to deploy. I certainly don't plan to switch from portupgrade and I believe subpackages can be implemented without breaking those good'n'old tools. If skv@ had a vision how to do it in 2011 (before pkg-ng), we should be able to (I hope). ./danfe P.S. Original paper (in Russian) can be found in my $HOME on freefall (Ports_proposals_(rus)_2011-11-19.pdf); you can ask bapt@ for English translation as I don't have that link handy right now.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170329180047.GA48105>