From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 2 15:21:03 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6DF106564A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:21:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexanderchuranov@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f164.google.com (mail-bw0-f164.google.com [209.85.218.164]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737858FC29 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:21:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexanderchuranov@gmail.com) Received: by bwz8 with SMTP id 8so552480bwz.43 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:21:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kyn8Tz1m/Vi5nI5phuGTmqF4TCKWdWIwSdWJF6hekQk=; b=kBIM9ciWTZSYtu3qSQIXw0Xh8hzdj2GuQjLf8DD/K+dhStEUUrGREUxyZo4CT0hHX4 grRYdLDJqgZHldTHTZl7KuVmXZY1aQOxmr7y3VvaUvmBMXqQgT9S5AWsD31IjgJlyflI dpjYOGRqaNNi75+8yhWceUGJ1hbb54eGps4cU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=gID2VxRbmmdmtaEEScjVJAB3Dieh7adRt6dJO8ASJqPHBm3Ux/RVObs7eT+VrcVPx0 H2TMZStec4ClYIA1UhmLbXcvffYytm0gj0wgO5I2nLBGxggu02AzYv7n5dAWifesTZRt EQT750iPT1eBBp4eOqC0VX3Ncg6vYy+Dcetfs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.51.65 with SMTP id c1mr41156bkg.59.1238685660202; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:21:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090401113857.GO1964@hades.panopticon> References: <3cb459ed0903270809s2da0fce7i66686a176d369931@mail.gmail.com> <20090331230246.GN1964@hades.panopticon> <20090401113857.GO1964@hades.panopticon> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:21:00 +0400 Message-ID: <3cb459ed0904020821u3051c572l6461274ae7ff118b@mail.gmail.com> From: Alexander Churanov To: Dmitry Marakasov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Jeremy Messenger , lwhsu@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of devel/boost upgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:21:03 -0000 2009/4/1 Dmitry Marakasov : > * Jeremy Messenger (mezz7@cox.net) wrote: > >> No need bsd.boost.mk over that small stuff. How about resolve conflict for >> real by split boost and boost-python by have boost only install non-python >> stuff and boost-python install only python stuff? > > That of course would be harder and more interesting, maybe I gotta dig > into it. Hi folks! I've already did it about a month ago. Currently I'm testing the solution. There are two ideas about splitting boost: 1) Split it into bjam, source-libs, shared-libs, python-libs and docs. This is what was actually done by me. 2) Split it into bjam, docs and a separate port for each library. This needs discussion. If you are interested, you may download sample ports from http://alexanderchuranov.com/boost-port/ The most recent tarball contains a set of alternative non-conflicting versioned ports for boost. They may be installed in addition to existing devel/boost. The 'source-libs' are header-only libraries that do not need compilation. For now I've found a single flaw in the latest set of these ports: devel/boost-python-libs-1.38 conflicts with devel/boost, because they install Pyste in the same place. Please, note that the flaw is only about the conflict of versioned port and non-versioned, if we would break non-versioned, system-layout boost as we currently have into parts, then there is no flaw at all. I didn't started a mailing thread on this topic, because there are tasks related to devel/boost that are not yet completed: updating to 1.37 and then to 1.38. Splitting boost into parts have following benefits: 1) Shorter time of installation/updates from packages. 2) Fine-grained selection of what's really necessary. 3) Simplified dependency tracking for other ports that depend on boost. 4) No more issues like conflict of devel/boost and devel/boost-python There are also drawbacks: 1) Time to build complete boost from ports is increased, because boost.org provides a single source package and it gets decompressed several times. 2) The number of ports is increased. The questions are: 1) Should we break boost into parts? 2) Should we break boost into "jam', 'source-libs', 'shared-libs', 'python-libs' and 'docs' or into one port per library? If folks agree on splitting boost into parts, I'll be glad to finish it. Sincerely, Alexander Churanov, maintainer of devel/boost