Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 08 Jan 1997 22:24:48 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Cc:        asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, ache@nagual.ru, ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Niklas Hallqvist: archivers/hpack.non-usa.only 
Message-ID:  <E0viCyv-0004FT-00@rover.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:41:34 PST." <950.852759694@time.cdrom.com> 
References:  <950.852759694@time.cdrom.com>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <950.852759694@time.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
: #2, without question.

OK.

: I think that we should try to syncronize the make macros when it's
: reasonable to do so (e.g. do not make bsd.port.mk even harder to
: understand and maintain than it already is), but the idea of a unified
: ports collection is almost certainly a fool's errand unless we unify
: along a much broader front (include files, libraries, etc) and I, for
: one, don't see that happening.

A goal that we have is to have an identical bsd.port.mk, steady state,
to the FreeBSD one.  It works well enough on OpenBSD and so far we've
only had path conflicts and maybe one or two small features to
accomidate the multi-platform nature of OpenBSD.  I've seen a gradual
merging of libaries and such, but I think you may be right.  It looks
a little like OpenBSD is going to have tcl and Tk in their tree, so
that may be a big source of greif.  I'm also told that curses vs
ncurses may bite some of the later ports as well.

: I think that the OpenBSD group should maintain its own ports tree,
: adapting our ports when necessary, and we can just look over
: eachother's shoulders occasionally to see if the other camp has
: brought in something particularly neat.  Since a "port" is so small,
: and the changes required generally so minor, the process of bringing
: ports over from one side or the other is pretty simple anyway.

I kinda like this idea.  Others in the group would rather have all the
FreeBSD just work on OpenBSD.  However, the more I look into this
problem, the more I think that it may not be possible for anything but
the simplest ports at the moment.  Over time, I'd like to see some
convergence, but I fear that the differing adgendas and styles may
make this hard to accomplish.

Above all, I want a solution that everyone can live with and we can be
happy with.

Warner



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0viCyv-0004FT-00>