On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:45:36AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: > >> I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > >> ports > >> tree: flavors and subpackages. > >> > >> For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more > >> like a > >> rework of the slave ports for now: > >> > >> Examples available here: > >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8840 (with the implementation) > >> and > >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8843 > >> > >> Design: introduce a 3rd level in the hierarchy and make it work a bit like > >> slave > >> ports > >> > >> pros: > >> - all slave ports are self hosted under the same directory: easier for > >> maintenance > >> - should work with all existing tools > >> > > This is what I really wanted for years especially for ports like spell > > checker. Some are in dedicated categories such as french/aspell while > > other are in textproc/<lang>-aspell and that's a big mess. > > > > OpenBSD ports has something like textproc/aspell/<lang> and that is > > very nice and clean. If the plan is to do the same, that is definitely > > a major improvement. > > > > I really like this idea, although it's going to add a lot of extra > directories and very similar small Makefiles to the ports. Every python > port would grow flavours to support two major versions of python just > for starters, and those additional Makefiles would be almost identical > across the python2 flavour and across the python3 flavour. > > Is it the intention that -devel or versioned ports are treated as > flavours as well? So for example we could end up with lang/python/27 > lang/python/33 lang/python/34 and lang/python/35 ?
I think that would be a very very bad idea to have that. There should be only one version for python2 and one version for python3 no more > Why can't you have both flavoured and unflavoured variants of the same > port -- eg. devel/example as well as devel/example/foo and > devel/example/bar ? In theory we could I'm working on that direction now. > > How well do flavours and sub-packages combine? www/nginx would make a > good example there, given it now has both loadable and compiled-in > modules plus a couple of slave ports that just build different module > load-outs. > The should fit well. I have an example locally with php I have lang/php56 which is now a single port that create zillions of packages (the same granularity as we have now in ports) and a flavour lang/php56/zts which does the same. Best regards, Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature