From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 8 09:02:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194B31065676 for ; Fri, 8 May 2009 09:02:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544558FC1A for ; Fri, 8 May 2009 09:02:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id MAA16117; Fri, 08 May 2009 12:02:04 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1] helo=edge.pp.kiev.ua) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1M2Lxz-0002lp-MJ; Fri, 08 May 2009 12:02:03 +0300 Message-ID: <4A03F50B.6050908@icyb.net.ua> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 12:02:03 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090406) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ashish SHUKLA References: <4A01C995.1080808@icyb.net.ua> <86hbzwvzsd.fsf@chateau.d.lf> In-Reply-To: <86hbzwvzsd.fsf@chateau.d.lf> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: split xcbgen from xcb-proto 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: Fri, 08 May 2009 09:02:07 -0000 on 08/05/2009 10:06 Ashish SHUKLA said the following: > Andriy Gapon writes: > >> It seems that it is a kind of bloating to require python with X (even if only a >> small portion of it is needed). Unfortunately upstream guys maintain xcb-proto and >> xcbgen in the same distribution. But a trend among packgers seem to be to split >> these two into separate packages. I wonder if anybody is working on the same for >> our ports. > > I don't think splitting into two ports will be a good idea. Why? They did it this way in pkgsrc and in debian packages. It seems natural to have C stuff as one port/package and python libs for transforming XML as another. -- Andriy Gapon