From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Aug 7 10: 2:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.musha.org (daemon.musha.org [61.122.44.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E3837B406; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:02:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from knu@iDaemons.org) Received: from archon.local.idaemons.org (archon.local.idaemons.org [192.168.1.32]) by mail.musha.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13BCC4E24E; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 02:02:23 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 02:02:23 +0900 Message-ID: <8666bzkdls.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> From: "Akinori MUSHA" To: Maxim Sobolev Cc: portmgr@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nakai@FreeBSD.ORG, dr@domix.de, demon@FreeBSD.ORG, gnome@FreeBSD.ORG, mi@aldan.algebra.com, ijliao@FreeBSD.ORG, andreas@FreeBSD.ORG, roman@xpert.com, greg@hewgill.com, jedgar@FreeBSD.ORG, jmz@FreeBSD.ORG, samy@goldmoon.org, dirk@FreeBSD.ORG, kanou@mil.allnet.ne.jp Subject: Re: Introducing USE_BZIP2{CMD,LIB,RUN} and BZIP2BASE In-Reply-To: <200108071056.f77Aut564297@vega.vega.com> References: <200108071056.f77Aut564297@vega.vega.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.7.1 (Too Funky) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga Valley) (i386--freebsd) Organization: Associated I. Daemons X-PGP-Public-Key: finger knu@FreeBSD.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: 081D 099C 1705 861D 4B70 B04A 920B EFC7 9FD9 E1EE MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:56:15 +0300 (EEST), sobomax wrote: > I still think that it is unneded complication. OpenSSL can't be an > example here, because it is likely that in the foreseable future > we will have to cope with the fact that the OpenSSL is disableable > component of the base system (yes, I know that US export restrictions > have been lifted, but there are still import restrictions in the > number of states). This is untrue for bzip2 - it is not an optional > component, so we have to chose solution that meets the folowing > criterias: It's not just OpenSSL, but we also have successful experience with USE_PERL5 and USE_NEWGCC. > a) provides smooth deorbiting path for archivers/bzip2 port; It doesn't make sense. How can you call your stub port strategy "smooth deorbiting"? > b) relatively easy to test and implement; > c) doesn't create false user's perception that bzip2 dualism is here > for ages. > > Your proposal doesn't comply with (b) and (c) above, because of the You are just being lazy to test. I showed you a concrete patch with which you can easily check if it breaks something. Just compare the outputs of `make -V BUILD_DEPENDS -V LIB_DEPENDS -V RUN_DEPENDS'. > following reasons: > > 1) There are still no facilities to test bsd.port.mk changes on; It is really discouraging to hear that from one of the portmgr's. Why don't you just make good use of bento clusters? You can change bsd.port.mk on them and see what happens in the next couple of days. > 2) past experience shows that there is a significant resistance for > removing support for obsolete options from bsd.port.mk (think about > USE_NEWGCC, USE_PERL5 etc.) No rumors, please. We could drop them RIGHT NOW if we want. Ports Collection no longer officially supports legacy systems like 3.x, and making those variables nops wouldn't hurt anything. -- / /__ __ Akinori.org / MUSHA.org / ) ) ) ) / FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp "Freeze this moment a little bit longer, make each impression a little bit stronger.. Experience slips away -- Time stand still" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message