Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:06:13 +0400 (MSD) From: Oleg Sharoiko <os@rsu.ru> To: ports@freebsd.org Cc: Wheel of RSUNet <wheel@rsu.ru> Subject: bsd.ports.mk, applications available as both part of system and ports Message-ID: <20030430225942.L364-100000@wolf.os.rsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030430155012.A68031@brain.cc.rsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm terribly sorry for resending my mail, but unfortunately I left the subject empty and I afraid most of you will ignore my previous mail due to that. Sorry once again. On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Oleg Sharoiko wrote: OS> Hello! OS> OS> I'd appreciate if someone clarify several issues concerning bsd.port.mk, OS> bsd.port.pre.mk/bsd.port.post.mk: OS> OS> First of all, as far as I understand bsd.port.mk and OS> bsd.port.pre.mk+bsd.port.post.mk are two different ways of doing the same OS> things. If it is so, than what's the preferred method? I suppose it's OS> .pre+.post because it gives more flexibility. If this is true than shouldn't OS> the entire ports tree be moving towards using .pre+.post but not bsd.port.mk? OS> OS> Second, it's possible to build some applications both as ports and as parts of OS> base system. Good example is OpenSSL. Such a possibility (of building it as OS> port or as part of base systems) brings up a problem of specifying dependency OS> in ports which depend on OpenSSL. There are currently two ways the port can OS> depend on OpenSSL: OS> OS> 1. The port may include bsd.port.mk and define USE_OPENSSL. In this case port OS> will be compiled only with OpenSSL in the base system. OS> OS> 2. The port may include bsd.port.pre.mk, bsd.port.post.mk and OS> security/openssl/bsd.openssl.mk. Such a combination allows for user to specify OS> which version of openssl is desired. OS> OS> As for me the second way is far much better than the first one. I'd like to OS> know your opinions since some port maintainers disagree. They suggest OS> installing OpenSSL from ports overwriting the base installation. I don't think OS> that overwriting the base installation it the right thing. OS> OS> Overall: are there any rules for defining dependencies which can be both the OS> part of base system or a port? Any port that depend on OS> openssl/openssh/sendmail/cvs/... should use similar mechanism. Have it been OS> worked out? Shouldn't bsd.openssl.mk be the way to go? OS> OS> In case .pre + .post by some reasons isn't the right thing than bsd.port.mk OS> should definitely be fixed. It simply disallows the usage of openssl from OS> ports, what I think is wrong (as well as the overwriting the base installation OS> with openssl is). OS> OS> Thank you for your attention. OS> OS> p.s. We're not on the list, so please keep our emails in the To: or Cc: OS> OS> -- Oleg Sharoiko. Software and Network Engineer Computer Center of Rostov State University.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030430225942.L364-100000>