Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:23:35 -0600 From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: Jonathan <jonathan@kc8onw.net> Cc: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating multimedia/handbrake Message-ID: <op.uksa58hr9aq2h7@localhost> In-Reply-To: <4921EB93.8050702@kc8onw.net> References: <4921E47E.7000001@kc8onw.net> <20081117235841.1133cfe3@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <4921EB93.8050702@kc8onw.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:09:23 -0600, Jonathan <jonathan@kc8onw.net> wrote: > Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:39:10 -0500 Jonathan <jonathan@kc8onw.net> >> wrote: >> >>> 1) The handbrake build system unmodified uses wget to download all >>> it's dependencies itself. The patches to modify the build system >>> to not do this are fairly significant and are a maintenance >>> headache. Would allowing the port to download it's dependencies >>> itself be acceptable or do I need to continue using the ports >>> distfile system and maintaining awkward patches? >> >> Dependencies as in *_DEPENDS? If yes, please try to maintain those >> patches. > > Handbrake custom patches many of the libraries it uses so I can't use > system version of those libraries. The handbrake team strongly > discourages building from source and wants people to use binaries so the > only all-in-one source for the library tar files currently is their > development server. To build handbrake while using FreeBSD ports > distfiles involves patching the build system to not fetch and extract > the archives and let FreeBSD do it which is a fairly large patch (nearly > 1/3 of the file is involved in the patch). > >> Does this auto-fetch system has any provision for verifying the >> integrity of those files? Like our checksums from distinfo. > > No it does not. > >>> 2) In addition to the above the developers have stated they would >>> strongly prefer that we not download the dependencies directly from >>> them as the server is not load balanced. In this case do we fetch >>> them directly anyway, host them on FreeBSD controlled systems, or >>> something else altogether? >> >> Umm, handbrake's build system downloads them from where? Can't we >> download from the same place? If not, yes, we can mirror them on >> MASTER_SITE_LOCAL. > > See above, if we have the port built from source they would pretty much > have to be mirrored on MASTER_SITE_LOCAL. That's best solution if their bandwidth can't handles it. >>> 3) The Handbrake developers prefer to directly distribute binaries >>> rather than have people building handbrake themselves but this goes >>> again the ports philosophy where building from source is the >>> primary method and packages are a convenience. Should I make the >>> port a stub that installs a pre-compiled binary like the teamspeak >>> port does? >> >> Do they make available binaries for all our supported OS versions? >> What about head? What about other archs that i386? For short no, >> please don't do that. > > If I choose to have the port build from source I can count on *not* > getting any support from the development team as they are pretty dead > set against anything other than pre-built binaries. Screw them. Build your own binary is no difference from users' own binary. Only a bit differences are machine arch and GCC options. Cheers, Mezz > Thanks, > Jonathan Stewart -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.uksa58hr9aq2h7>