From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 30 12:06:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAE337B408 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asterix.rsu.ru (asterix.rsu.ru [195.208.245.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498CC43F3F for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:06:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from os@rsu.ru) Received: from modems-99.rsu.ru (os@modems-99.rsu.ru [195.208.251.99]) by asterix.rsu.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3UJ6DR7025032; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:06:14 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from os@rsu.ru) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:06:13 +0400 (MSD) From: Oleg Sharoiko X-X-Sender: os@wolf.os.rsu.ru To: ports@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20030430155012.A68031@brain.cc.rsu.ru> Message-ID: <20030430225942.L364-100000@wolf.os.rsu.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION version=2.53 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) cc: Wheel of RSUNet Subject: bsd.ports.mk, applications available as both part of system and ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:06:28 -0000 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.