Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:04:04 -0500 From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper Message-ID: <20000909010404.D92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <20000909004552.J632@radon.gryphonsoft.com>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:45:52AM -0500 References: <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000905221216.A25531@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000905224407.X23702@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000909003238.A92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <20000909004552.J632@radon.gryphonsoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:45:52AM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
# Sure it does, all that's needed is to set a number of defaults for
# PACKAGE_BUILDING.. like this:
#
# .if defined(PACKAGE_BUILDING)
# .if ${PKGNAME} == blah
# do some stuff
# .elseif ${PKGNAME} == blah2
# do some other stuff
# .endif
#
# and so forth, for the ports that will handle multiple packages
# simultaneously.
This would only work if you could get 'make describe' to spew out
multiple entries for a single port. More specifically the package
building machines will generate one package per entry in the INDEX
file. Right now since one port creates a single entry, you'll get
one package per port. Consequently for what you are saying to work
each port that could generate more than one package must generate
more than one INDEX entry. I'm not saying this isn't possible,
just that unless we want to deal with a more manual process for
building packages you have to take the package building machines
into consideration.
-steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000909010404.D92984>