Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 18:12:46 -0400 From: Ultima <ultima1252@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: flavors and subpackages Message-ID: <CANJ8om6JivwmTcrCffZLVxfK6mXUtJKE2_0Pn=1YAZupx4yNog@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170408220004.ixq4unwpzpk4n5ia@ivaldir.net> References: <20170408220004.ixq4unwpzpk4n5ia@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for the update and working on this bapt, it will be a nice feature to have in the port tree. On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have started to merge subpackages and flavors to the ports tree. > > While for subpackages I'm only committing for now modifications of > bsd.port.mk > that needs to be made in preparation for proper subpackages > > For flavours, I have a working patch for a first easy step which should > cover > for examples all the py2/py3 mess we have now > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10327 > > basically if a port can have multiple variation then it just have to define > FLAVORS= foo bar > > Committing the infrastructure part will not break anything but actually > using > it in ports will break portmaster, portupgrade, synth, poudriere and others > which should be easily fixable on each end > > I haven't yet written a patch for poudriere but I plan to do it as soon as > I > can. For others I will let their maintainers doing it > > In my opinion it should be used with a proper policy from portmgr. > > If I take the python as an example: > we should imho provide flavors for major version of the languages, meaning > py27 > and py35 right now, but not for all possible version of the languages. > > only libs should provide flavors, end user programs should not. > > Best regards, > Bapt >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANJ8om6JivwmTcrCffZLVxfK6mXUtJKE2_0Pn=1YAZupx4yNog>