Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:52:44 -0500 From: parv <parv@pair.com> To: Christopher Nehren <apeiron@comcast.net> Cc: FreeBSD Ports List <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Suggestion for distinction of XS Perl ports Message-ID: <20040206215244.GA1719@moo.holy.cow> In-Reply-To: <20040206194011.GA1000@prophecy.dyndns.org> References: <20040206173646.GA98792@prophecy.dyndns.org> <20040206183841.GB385@moo.holy.cow> <20040206194011.GA1000@prophecy.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
in message <20040206194011.GA1000@prophecy.dyndns.org>, wrote Christopher Nehren thusly... > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 13:38:41 EST, parv scribbled these > curious markings: > > A module is a module is a module. > > > > If we will be having XS modules marked as stated above, i want to > > have module ports marked which are already installed w/ a, 'a' as in > > any, perl version. > > I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by this -- can you elaborate? I did not want to explicitly say that adding 'XS' to a Perl module port's name for the sole reason to make it easy for one person to upgrade was silly. See also... http://groups.google.com/groups?th=69ac9ba85ec82d5a > An alternative method is to have the XS Perl modules depend on > a pseudo-port, and then you can "portupgrade -r perl-xs-package", > and it'd do all of the work for you, like with pkg-config and > GNOME (though that's not a pseudo-port at all, of course). That seems a better/cleaner idea than to put XS in a port's directory name. - Parv --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040206215244.GA1719>