On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:12:02PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote on 2016/12/19 09:45: > > 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. > > Can this be processed by some code in Mk/bsd.*.mk? > I mean if we can add something to the main Makefile then we don't need to > add subdirectories and sub-Makefiles for each Python module port.
If we do that we do break the paradigm: 1 package = 1 origin which will break portmaster/portupgrade for example Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature