From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jan 8 21:25:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA03700 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 21:25:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id VAA03689 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 21:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 0.56 #1) id E0viCyv-0004FT-00; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 22:24:49 -0700 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Subject: Re: Niklas Hallqvist: archivers/hpack.non-usa.only Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, ache@nagual.ru, ports@freebsd.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> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 22:24:48 -0700 From: Warner Losh Message-Id: Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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