On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:25:36PM +0100, Matthieu Volat wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:31:43 +0100 > Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > 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 > > > > cons: > > - hackish: it is not really much more than a slave port > > - it adds plenty of new Makefiles :( > > > > I think anyway this is an improvement > > > > Next step after that is in would be to extend it to allow some dependency > > on "I > > depend on whatever flavor if port X" > > > > Subpackages: > > Design: > > Add a new macro MULTI_PACKAGES > > flag plist with an @pkg{suffixofthesubpackage} file > > the framework will split the plist into small plist and create all the > > packages > > All variables like COMMENT can be overridden with a > > COMMENT_${suffixofthesubpackage} > > > > pros: > > - simple and working almost now > > - allow to simplify lots of ports > > - options friendly (<optionname>_PACKAGE automatically appends a new entry > > to > > MULTI_PACKAGES) > > > > cons: > > - will break the paradigm that certain tools depend on > > (portmaster/portupgrade > > in particular are a huge problem since they are not actively maintained) > > > > Example of the usage: > > https://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/multipackage.diff > > > > Note that I took the mpg123 as an example because it was a simple one to > > test > > not because it may need subpackages > > > > As a result you build 3 packages: > > mpg123 (the runtime tools) > > mpg123-lib: the runtime libraries > > mpg123-sndio: the sndio plugin > > > > LIB_DEPENDS on ports depending on libmpg123.so does not have to be changed, > > the > > framework already automatically register only the mpg123-lib as a > > dependency and > > not others. > > > > Not the example is missing one thing: a dependency between mpeg123-lib and > > mpg123 > > > > The second is not ready yet and would take time to land > > > > Any comment? > > > > Best regards, > > Bapt > > Does this approach would manage a file that differ between flavors? Let's say > there a libfoo.so file that behave differently wheter an option A is selected > or not, but is still present in both cases.
Yes > > On another note, I kinda liked the macports approach to use the "+" separator > regarding naming flavors/options, it allows to better distinguish what in the > package name and what are the selected options, and handled itself quite well > with multiple instances, like "vim+nls+python+x11"... Did you consider > something like that? No because, actually there were some ports doing that in the past. and we removed that because it makes it hard to identify programatically packages Also not that the information about the options used are already stored in the package and pkg can show them to you Best regards, Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
