Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:42:27 -0800 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@BSDforge.com> To: "David Wolfskill" <david@catwhisker.org> Cc: "FreeBSD Ports ML" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, "Stefan Esser" <se@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster Message-ID: <494f380db076a1dec85078e7fac58e1c@udns.ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <20171205113310.GX1384@albert.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:33:10 -0800 "David Wolfskill" <david@catwhisker=2Eorg> = said > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote: > > =2E=2E=2E > > I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster=2E My version did already bui= ld > > all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processe= s, > > but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of= the > > same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 vers= ion > > and vice versa), which I still have to fix=2E >=20 > Thank you; that is encouraging=2E >=20 > > I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not = too > > hard=2E Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where > > appropriate (e=2Eg=2E when a flavored destination is found in MOVED)=2E Alrea= dy > > installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed = to > > the build command, when that port is updated=2E Most other logic in portm= aster > > remains unaffected=2E >=20 > That seems reasonable=2E >=20 > > My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly= to > > not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines=2E >=20 > Also reasonable, IMO=2E >=20 > > Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package sy= stem? > > AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support wor= ks > > with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure? >=20 > I believe so: if for no other reason, one wishing to support such a > non-PKG_NG infrastructure can certainly use an older version of > portmaster=2E The sensible side of me also agrees that this is probably a reasonable, and efficient approach=2E But the practical side says there will likely be some screaming on the mailing lists, once this change lands=2E IMHO it might be a good idea to make a legacy branch, in the ports tree before gutting the pre-NG stuff=2E Just a thought=2E :) >=20 > > Regards, STefan > > =2E=2E=2E=2E >=20 > Peace, > david --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?494f380db076a1dec85078e7fac58e1c>