Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:48:10 +0200 From: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADUP] FLAVORS landing. Message-ID: <a0a3f0b3-ec50-df0c-3d99-cde3a7579d29@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <c01a5ca4-7ec8-d271-9130-7ed6d13d1f9e@freebsd.org> References: <dcc6fa75-8325-01e9-4a86-e3bc61bb27a2@FreeBSD.org> <b964b742-389d-a4e6-0f5f-f30f976d79bd@freebsd.org> <a236f275-4cff-72d1-7d90-955a43062458@FreeBSD.org> <c7e8a348-0b17-d5e8-bf8d-e499c813f8d7@arved.at> <e7cfc564-3c59-e21d-2586-89436a3abb38@FreeBSD.org> <91d1252c-5398-dca8-f337-959fa722efc7@freebsd.org> <5f2632cd-4c7c-c1e3-d4f9-292c5cfe90a1@freebsd.org> <c01a5ca4-7ec8-d271-9130-7ed6d13d1f9e@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/27/2017 15:24, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 27/9/17 8:17 pm, Stefan Esser wrote: >> Am 27.09.17 um 13:52 schrieb Julian Elischer: >>> On 27/9/17 4:20 pm, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> >>> Before this gets too far down the road I would like to suggest that we >>> quickly formalise some nomenclature >>> or we will have 200 different ideas as to how to do the same thing; >>> >>> I would like to propose the following possible "examples of official" >>> flavours: >>> -nodocs .. nearly every port has a DOCS option.. a way to >>> automatically turn it off globally and generate said pkgs would be good. >>> -minimal .. smallest possible feature set.. probably used just to >>> satisfy some stupid dependency. >>> -kitchensink .. speaks for itself .. options lit up like a christmas >>> tree >>> -runtime .. no .a files, include files, development >>> documentation or sources .. >>> might only contain a single libxx.so.N file, or a >>> single binary executable. >> No, these are no good examples for flavours, as I understand them ... > why not? > > that's part of the problem here. It's not really defined.. > sub packages? flavours? what's the difference? While it's not well defined there's a simple euristics which can be applied: Can two packages be obtained from a single build process of the ports? yes -> subpackages this applies when the produced binaries and other parts are the same with and without a specific option. The only differentiating thing is if specific files are included or not in the resulting package. doc/nodoc usually falls in this category. no -> flavour this can happen because changing the options actually changes the produced binaries and the libraries it links too, so I need to build the port two times with different options. x11/nox11 usually falls in this category. There can be grey areas I bet... -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a0a3f0b3-ec50-df0c-3d99-cde3a7579d29>