From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 15 21:20:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AC116A41F for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:20:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A832843D49 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:20:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8FLKMwK082432 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:20:22 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j8FLKMQe082431; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:20:22 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:20:22 GMT Message-Id: <200509152120.j8FLKMQe082431@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Roman Neuhauser Cc: Subject: Re: ports/86098: [PATCH] devel/pear-PEAR/Makefile.common: allow use by foreign packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Roman Neuhauser List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:20:23 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/86098; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Roman Neuhauser To: Antonio Carlos Venancio Junior , freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org, Pav Lucistnik , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/86098: [PATCH] devel/pear-PEAR/Makefile.common: allow use by foreign packages Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:17:07 +0200 # thierry@FreeBSD.org / 2005-09-15 22:15:33 +0200: > Le Jeu 15 sep 05 ? 14:26:50 +0200, Roman Neuhauser > écrivait : > > # antonio@php.net / 2005-09-15 09:10:11 -0300: > > > Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > > ># antonio@php.net / 2005-09-14 19:15:46 -0300: > > > >>Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > > >>># antonio@php.net / 2005-09-14 18:14:16 -0300: > > > >>>> SimpleTest isn't a PEAR package and I don't think it's a good idea > > > >>>> have "alien" packages using Makefile.common. > > > >>> > > > >>> Why? > > > >> > > > >> Because it's not part of the PEAR PHP Framework. > > > > > > > > Is there a *technical* reason? > > > > > > No. It's a semantical reason. > > > > Ok, putting Makefile.common aside for a while, what's everybody's > > position on these two questions (simple yes/no will do): > > > > * should pear-compatible packages that don't come from pear.php.net > > get installed under ${PEARDIR}? > > If by "pear-compatible" you mean that it is listed by 'pear list' after > installation, yes, of course, it should be installed under ${PEARDIR} by > default. Hm, you see, I should've probably split that question: * when a software is available in the form of a pear compatible (read: installable with pear(1)) package besides a "normal" tar.gz, which should be preferred, supposing all other things are equal? * if the pear compatible packaging is used to port such an "alien" software, should it end up under ${PEARDIR}, or elsewhere (if so, where)? > If pear-compatible, it may have dependencies against "genuine" > pear packages, and the user won't have to add another path_include. Well, I guess we could use ${REINPLACE_CMD} to tweak php{,-cli}.ini in pkg-install and pkg-deinstall, similar to httpd.conf or to the mechanism used by PHP extensions. > > * should pear-compatible packages that don't come from pear.php.net > > get "PKGNAMEPREFIX=pear-"? > > IMHO, no. For example, all Horde's pear-compatible packages (i.e. those > available under ) are already prefixed > by "Horde_". But that's not PKGNAMEPREFIX. The Horde_ "prefix" is equivalent to "Archive_" in Archive_Tar. > Note: at this time, they are not installed by the FreeBSD ports system, > but this might change with future versions. > > * should pear-compatible packages belong to the pear CATEGORIES? > > I personnaly don't care, but if we don't use "pear", a new category > "php" would be useful. You would need php4 and php5 IMO, and those two PKGNAMEPREFIXes are already taken for other purposes. > > > Keep in mind that you will have to chosse between pear-* ports > > > structure or the PEAR CLI. The user should IMO be able to mix pear packages installed from ports and with pear(1) (I'm not sure I understand what you meant above). > > Then I wonder why we bother with installing package.xml files. > > I suppose that we could remove it after 'pear install', or even run > 'pear install' from ${WRKSRC}/package.xml: it's not even used by > 'pear info'. Uh, I'm afraid I got a bit confused. I'd have to look to remind myself of their use (if any). Thanks for the feedback Thierry. -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991