Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:15:12 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Upgrade Tool Message-ID: <20060504191512.GA69895@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060504183936.GC28973@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <44538D42.8030301@chrismaness.com> <200605010901.50654.aren.tyr@gawab.com> <20060501091523.GA38820@pentarou.parodius.com> <200605021827.34873.aren.tyr@gawab.com> <20060504094155.GC984@roadrunner.q.local> <20060504165727.GA67780@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060504183936.GC28973@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:39:36AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:57:27PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:41:55AM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > > > Aren Olvalde Tyr wrote: > > > > Perhaps it would be good, if, say on the corresponding port entry o= n the=20 > > > > FreeBSD ports webpage, it listed all the options used for building = the binary=20 > > > > package. For example, for the "Package" link, instead of simply lin= king to=20 > > > > the package, it could link to a page entry listing all of the build= options=20 > > > > used, with the package download link at the bottom. Or something li= ke that.=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Just an idea. What do people think?=20 > > >=20 > > > I'd even go further. This is something I have been thinking about on = and > > > off. Namely, a FLAVOUR system for packages. A maintainer specifies up= to > > > three FLAVOURs per port, which set various flags for building the por= t. > >=20 > > In FreeBSD land these are called "slave ports", and you can have as > > many as you like. I don't have any interest in adding a separate > > "flavour" system in parallel to this. >=20 > With MPI based parallel code there are times where I think a flavor > system might scale better, but I haven't done the work to expose the > non-scaling yet. The problem is that we've got ~5 versions of MPI > in the tree, but each one of those really should be buildable with > different C and Fortran compilers so you could easily see 50+ MPIs. > Multiple each applicaiton by that and things get crazy. :) Do all combinations really need packages? With or without flavours you wouldn't even think about building packages for all possible combinations of build options for a port. Kris --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEWlLAWry0BWjoQKURAvtNAJ9rBhLwyH7/1f6c84catbA29ETLXwCePamq E7eEBvlgu0d7MEI5R95ao/c= =Nchw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060504191512.GA69895>