Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 10:10:52 -0800 From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Option vs. flavor? Message-ID: <2e1a60e4-6800-49a9-aaca-73a1a856c7a3@rawbw.com> In-Reply-To: <0CE3611A-F100-4443-93B4-68A0A83F162B@adamw.org> References: <ee10fa7f-9107-1c35-8540-ff34d306865d@rawbw.com> <FC78B364-3688-40D0-83D8-24025201B683@adamw.org> <c1317132-0850-d033-49bb-f40258ddb6e5@rawbw.com> <0CE3611A-F100-4443-93B4-68A0A83F162B@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/17/17 06:32, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > Ah okay. Then I'd say, make a slave port that just > fetches/extracts/installs the data files, and an option in the Geant4 > master port that defaults to off. Set the slave port to NO_PACKAGE. Ok, I will do it this way. > I wouldn't go the flavor route, because the purpose of flavors is to > generate multiple packages. The 4.5GB data files shouldn't have a > package, so options is the way to go. I was actually wondering, why the use of flavors is such a bad idea in this case? I know that flavors weren't originally intended for this, but it might seem that they lend themselves very well to such use. One can have a virtual flavor, say @withHugeData. It doesn't get built by default because it is virtual. At the same time, somebody who needs data can always run 'poudriere .... thepkg@withHudeData' and build the needed flavor of the package. What would be the downside of such use, besides it being the use of a completely different kind than anticipated? Yuri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2e1a60e4-6800-49a9-aaca-73a1a856c7a3>