Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:47:53 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: blt2.1 Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961110153202.8891B-100000@packet.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <26687.847646181@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > The least or most common denomimator? :-) > > FWIW, it was always my intention to make the port a "superset" of the > package, so the package user got a canned "this is what we think > you'll like" version and the port user had more flexibility, if such > flexibility was available at all. > > In the second generation, the package should have different "flavors" > to it, which you can examine or select from the adding tool. If you > ask for the developer flavor, it gives you that copy of its insides. > If you ask for the stupid user flavor, it makes the appropriate > changes. The "flavor" scheme is also how it'll be possible to have > one package with FreeBSD, NetBSD and Linux binaries in it, each doing > the right thing automagically when unpacked on one of those platforms. > > But I get somewhat ahead of myself here.. :-) Well, that is what I was slowly getting at. The process of making a particular flavor really has to start just after the extract, so that it gets patched and configured correctly. You'll agree that this isn't just a point of including the right parts, it's a point of making possible the planned building of correct versions. In order for there EVER to be a standard definition of port gumby, extended plopBSD version, there has to be some way to plan the express building of that. Right now, there is no way to enforce that a package is made of any particular flavor, even for those ports that allow choices. Maybe this will have to wait until I get a chance to hack at it when the semester is over in about a month. I want to revisit some changes I want looked at regarding X11 ports anyways. What I want to have are several new things: 1) New target "optionlist" that lists build options for a port, with short descriptions of what they mean. 2) New variable OPTIONS that can be set to any value specified when you run optionlist, to force the port to build that way. 3) name of workdir changed, so that it reflects the option list that was active (or maybe a new cookie deposited to tell that). 4) Packages that are built for a particular option list cookie, so that a ports designer could lay out obvious options (like GUI and non-GUI packages for emacs). 5) PLISTs for each option. Extend PLIST name to PLIST.option_name. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.961110153202.8891B-100000>