From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Nov 11 05:52:45 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA14788 for ports-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:52:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA14780; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:52:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.2/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA02483; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:52:39 -0800 (PST) To: Chuck Robey cc: Satoshi Asami , FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: blt2.1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:36:38 EST." Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:52:39 -0800 Message-ID: <2481.847720359@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I see, we're taking orthogonal directions. Mine would have a different > package for each set of options, yours would build every possible option. I think it's an important distinction. Let's say (as a very reasonable example) you wanted to make the emacs package dual-use for those with and without X, e.g. provide an emacs binary which doesn't fall over in the absence of X libraries if the user chooses the "NO_X11" version. In your scheme, you'd need to build two completely different emacs packages with replicated lisp libraries, info, the whole whack. Mine would have two flavors, the only files being replicated for each flavor (instead of being hashed to the same entry) being the actual emacs executables which differed. > OK, if you want that direction. Do you include any hackery to allow the > guy who builds his own ports just to build and install the parts he wants? That's a ports issue, not a packaging issue. :-) The port can still be as clever as it wants and not affect any of my stuff, and it's only the "package" target I see changing to any degree in bsd.port.mk. Jordan