Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:38:46 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PHP 5.4.0 : lang/php54 Message-ID: <4FC6D9B6.5090603@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120529190835.GA63113@over-yonder.net> References: <CA%2BdUSyp2ztuZdCocnpNCgf-h%2BJO4zMMFEMi_xrm8nbwQ2W9How@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83_-UOWSc_suztjLBk0xYu_wu1TSN29Nwarn=nsFRv_TFQ@mail.gmail.com> <4FBA618A.1050707@freebsd.org> <20120521155736.GA79323@DataIX.net> <4FBA6FEB.1000706@quip.cz> <4FC45D40.4060200@FreeBSD.org> <4FC4AC34.70902@acsalaska.net> <4FC501F9.8080304@FreeBSD.org> <4FC514AF.4040000@FreeBSD.org> <4FC519E0.5070909@FreeBSD.org> <20120529190835.GA63113@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/29/2012 12:08, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:48:00AM -0700 I heard the voice of
> Doug Barton, and lo! it spake thus:
>> The whole concept of category/portname where there are multiple
>> versions of portname is flawed. The DEFAULT_PORTNAME_VER mechanism
>> works just fine, especially for dependencies.
>
> The disadvantage though is that we need to grow and use b.p.m
> infrastructure then for every port we start handling multiple versions
> of.
No, only for those ports that are depended on, where multiple versions
can be used to fulfill a dependency. The full-blown infrastructure would
only be needed in this case. For leaf ports (ala bind*) it's not needed
at all, and for other depended ports (ala libtorrent-rasterbar*) where
only one version is suitable (or desirable) for the leaf it's not
necessary.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC6D9B6.5090603>