Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 12:49:28 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrade Tool Message-ID: <20060504194928.GF28973@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060504194122.GA70303@xor.obsecurity.org> 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> <20060504191512.GA69895@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060504192308.GE28973@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20060504194122.GA70303@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--1Y7d0dPL928TPQbc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:41:22PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:23:08PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > All combinations don't need packages, but I'd like an easy way to build > > as many as half a dozen versions on the same machine so users can use > > the compiler and MPI version of their choice. At this point the easiest > > way to handle that would be to build non-conflicting slave ports for the > > combinations I wanted but that starts to waste a lot of inodes pretty > > fast. >=20 > A few extra ports don't hurt, really - it's a minor perturbation on > the steady growth of the ports tree. From my point of view, it's a > good feature of the slave port approach that it makes the developer > think a bit about what combinations are really needed as separate > packages (since they have to do a small bit of work to set up each > one). Anyone adding n! slave ports is going to quickly get noticed > and smacked :-) Certainly a valid point, especialy since ATLAS is on of those MPI ports. :-) > > Another option that could work for me would be to make it easier to > > maintain a local ports category so I could have my own slave ports. >=20 > You should be able to do that by just appending to SUBDIR and > CATEGORIES in a Makefile.local or similar. It's been discussed > recently, anyway. I've messed with it a bit. The biggest issue I've found is that I couldn't find an easy way to add a few leaf ports to the INDEX file without doing a full rebuild. > Or since this is for your own use you could just have one port and > write a trivial script that repeatedly packages it with your own set > of option combinations. That's also an option. Sometimes I just need to overcome my urge to find a general solution and use a quick hack that works. The reality is that this MPI stuff is an edge case that doesn't matter to most people. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --1Y7d0dPL928TPQbc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEWlrHXY6L6fI4GtQRAnNCAJwNMbYJsLer5anzYgiy6jF6pP2UhQCfVOH6 UC/eArMSeX8MSCZgXL1SjvQ= =Psvf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1Y7d0dPL928TPQbc--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060504194928.GF28973>