Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:25:22 +0200 From: Sebastian Schulze Struchtrup <seb@struchtrup.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <416DAB52.5070404@struchtrup.com> In-Reply-To: <20041013193432.GA53895@hub.freebsd.org> References: <416C0DE8.3000004@struchtrup.com> <416C35A5.4040703@vonostingroup.com> <20041013123840.GB1301@FreeBSD.org> <20041013193432.GA53895@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: >OPTIONS isn't the answer -- they don't do anything for 'pkg_add -r' >users. > That's a problem. I agree. But what about ports having 10 different options? Probably it would make sense to build the most common configurations in such a case. On the other hand, the user must know which package to add for a given port with a given config. I am not familiar with packages and package building in detail. >Since we go to a *lot* of work building packages and making them >available there must be a huge number of consumers of them. We should be >making more port variations. vim-gtk, vim-kde, vim-athena, vim-motif for >instance. That way a pkg_add user and get what they want. > > I assume that this is currently done by hand? To say build the vim port with options --with-gtk, --with-kde and --with_arena? Or is there a way to set this in a Makefile? Not only altering the package name from vim to vim-xxx, but to define configurations for automatic package building?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?416DAB52.5070404>