Re: This is going to break port building without poudriere!

[Alexander Leidinger]

Am 2024-01-26 13:16, schrieb Moin Rahman:

On Jan 26, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Luca Pizzamiglio <pizza...@freebsd.org> wrote:

Hi Alexander.

You understand correctly what I wrote:
* Several master/slave ports can be converted to use subpackages.
* Php is a potential candidate for subpackage adoption


As you pointed out, there are two challenges specifically for php:

To do that:




Best regards,
pizzamig

However, I wasn't explicit on the fact that I won't impose subpackages adoption on anyone. Specifically, I don't want to convert php into subpackages right away, there are smaller/easier examples to tackle first. And in general, the maintainer is the one making the decision, and they can disagree with me. An experimental adoption will be considered for lang/php83, existing versions won't be converted. * moving all extensions (slave ports) to subpackages in lang/php* can significantly increase build times (for ports users) and its dependency list (for pkg users) * the meta php-extensions port is a convenient way create a custom group of extensions Php port could be converted into subpackages if and only if we can provide a similar experience as before. * we would need to add options to enable/disable extensions, in order to manage build times and dependencies * we need to provide the similar meta php-extensions package, as it's largely used If the maintainer finds out that subpackages are not suitable for php, they won't be adopted.

Hi Everyone,

Comments are in point of me being the php maintainer:

It's not that I haven't checked it yet about the possibility of
converting php ports to subpkgs but there are some issues. Not all
extensions can be converted to subpkg and there will be some pkgs left
out as standard pkgs. So for example there will be a mix of
# pkg install php83~opcache
and
# pkg install php83-xmlrpc

Which is a mix of both worlds and will be a real pain point as we have
to memorize which was where. Although there is a php8X-extensions

Bye,
Alexander.

--
http://www.Leidinger.net alexan...@leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.org    netch...@freebsd.org  : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF

This hasn't to be like that. A subpackage is a package. From a pkg install point of view there doesn't need to be a distinction between php83~opcache and php83-opcache. pkg doesn't need a distinction between package or subpackage from an install point of view, it's the user which may need to know the origin and that it is a subpackage of the origin. This info would be enough to have in the metadata, it doesn't need to exists in the package name.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature