Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:16:12 -0400 From: Jerry Alexandratos <jerry.alexandratos@quansoo.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Encap Message-ID: <E10rSI8-000AQA-00@tardis.quansoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So, today's been a particluarly boring day at work. Someone mentioned a
package management system called encap sometime last week. I thought
I'd check it out.
Looks good.
Since everyone was talking about this last week, I thought I'd toss out
an idea (and you all thought this was over with). It seemed to me that
the ideas being tossed around were an all or nothing proposition.
Either keep the ports system as is, or move to a two-tier model.
Why couldn't we do both?
For instance, the ports system behaves as it currently does. Now, let's
say you define USE_ENCAP = YES in /etc/make.conf all of the sudden, you
start building two-tier ports.
Then, just put some lines in bsd.port.mk like:
ENCAPDIR?= /usr/local/encap
ENCAPBASE?= ${ENCAPDIR}/${PKGNAME}
And then change the $PREFIX logic to something like:
.if defined(USE_X_PREFIX)
PREFIX?= ${X11BASE}
.elif defined(USE_ENCAP)
PREFIX?= ${ENCAPBASE}
.else
PREFIX?= ${LOCALBASE}
There, not much has changed. Describe the two-tier ports setup as
something that is not for novices and make it explicitly known that
there is some config work to be done after the port is built.
That way we retain our famously simple yet robust setup, yet, provide a
mechanism for those who ask for more?
Like I said, I'm bored, this got stuck in my head, and really, I just
want to see what people think, not start a flame war.
Thanks.
--Jerry
name: Jerry Alexandratos || Open-Source software isn't a
phone: 302.521.1018 || matter of life or death...
email: jalexand@quansoo.com || ...It's much more important
|| than that!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E10rSI8-000AQA-00>