Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 21:08:44 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals Message-ID: <20161222200844.reh5rf7yv2a66exb@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <585822F2.2040508@quip.cz> References: <20161219003143.c2qo5wn3a5kiua3m@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAO%2BPfDeimDrYaz68Msitb_xdnnWfPoWv37AE6teaHZae0nBcRA@mail.gmail.com> <6ff9b573-1778-5b5a-5bf5-773d20b72ff5@FreeBSD.org> <585822F2.2040508@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--lx3mlquoh3nuw3p5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:12:02PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote on 2016/12/19 09:45: > > On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: > > > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request = for the ports > > > > tree: flavors and subpackages. > > > >=20 > > > > For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which i= s more like a > > > > rework of the slave ports for now: > > > >=20 > > > > Examples available here: > > > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8840 (with the implementation) > > > > and > > > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8843 > > > >=20 > > > > Design: introduce a 3rd level in the hierarchy and make it work a b= it like slave > > > > ports > > > >=20 > > > > pros: > > > > - all slave ports are self hosted under the same directory: easier = for > > > > maintenance > > > > - should work with all existing tools > > > >=20 > > > This is what I really wanted for years especially for ports like spell > > > checker. Some are in dedicated categories such as french/aspell while > > > other are in textproc/<lang>-aspell and that's a big mess. > > >=20 > > > OpenBSD ports has something like textproc/aspell/<lang> and that is > > > very nice and clean. If the plan is to do the same, that is definitely > > > a major improvement. > > >=20 > >=20 > > I really like this idea, although it's going to add a lot of extra > > directories and very similar small Makefiles to the ports. Every python > > port would grow flavours to support two major versions of python just > > for starters, and those additional Makefiles would be almost identical > > across the python2 flavour and across the python3 flavour. >=20 > Can this be processed by some code in Mk/bsd.*.mk? > I mean if we can add something to the main Makefile then we don't need to > add subdirectories and sub-Makefiles for each Python module port. If we do that we do break the paradigm: 1 package =3D 1 origin which will b= reak portmaster/portupgrade for example Bapt --lx3mlquoh3nuw3p5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEgOTj3suS2urGXVU3Y4mL3PG3PloFAlhcMswACgkQY4mL3PG3 PlqWew/+N3YU5xpf8tqRPTva6YnxcANLaztrpLtIiu0ot3094Q9DG90ZvM5kB75p O5QhAtPIn7grv4pwjo/wqtbzfdZsM882JFbpAEfceENbPWCt+Y+MpHX+UyStmgI+ 6zp2mCbtxtH23zEsOv0YfE9hn4VuJ5uSAkcfthL5xI0SatyyaZFY/t+ex9el06es 5qNWU6J5TlmNqhEDT1AI/wnHYFRfGqiADy12TAwy2dXhPsgkHQ/at+UiwXk/tZVc wykaKFVEMVtzISq025vaGZ2FmPm1RLtuWKFQwUnmIp2Lphj84asYkzK96ldhEuCs Nsw9Mx9Y7PjMilDKI7hkUmoaSo6p6YS73tBuLEzD34SvBX3hI4WBJI2BnBQG1s6P DC3NwlE3aA4W4aTXBH9A3sQYOCNb4Z8xwoI+0MLk1dPG9UB2JqffKnppB5Daa1k1 W5zym657ozCSwWFAPiHzzoyTX3qZ0GfSyHWb243nMYsMGxBHa2gOEhQRATFcTcrv JLlVK2J4FaAO387liU1mW4eZvMwZyIRbVrHCJda/rF5cl+lyDdNC9Ub530dakOFt rZPk8UJblEuQxXSTxuk+Jkqe/Kz1kFz0IrZKD/7TdTE/NXbJxI4HR5zm3Xvj2gZu Phe04xJM8tRWWqGr/DrnNo9crPUxq6bu2SExg/suv3e4Ub91qaM= =1vqv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lx3mlquoh3nuw3p5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161222200844.reh5rf7yv2a66exb>