On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:31:53PM +0100, Omar Polo wrote: > > Thanks Marc and Stuart for the replies! > > Marc Espie writes: > > > [...] > > If you don't have anything to package, you can always use the lesser known > > features of BUILD_DEPENDS > > > > See bsd.port.mk(5).... you will probably find > > BUILD_DEPENDS = some/path:patch > > > > to be more or less what you would need. > > It took me a while to understand, but now I get it. I didn't know it > was possible to specify the target in BUILD_DEPENDS. But the problem is > that I would have to create a port for every dependency. Generally > speaking this seems the best approach, but in this case, since this > would be the second common-lisp port, I don't think it would be optimal.
Well... there are lots of ways to deal with ports with several dependencies. I don't know how it's architected, really. Maybe having actual dependent ports which package would be even better ? I don't know whether it makes sense to compile dependencies and bundle them then do some kind of linking later... which is definitely what we do for C, C++,perl... as far as having several ports go, it's not as bad as it may seem. Another reminder: the ports tree on OpenBSD is not a flat two level structure you could very easily stash everything under the same prefix in the ports tree > Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> writes: > > On 2021/03/03 16:24, Omar Polo wrote: > > [...] > > Indeed MASTER_SITES can only go from <nothing> to 9, but as long as there's > > a common base URL you can use the "DISTFILES=local{remote}suffix" syntax. > > Here's an example for converting stumpwm to use this. Some ports do similar > > for multiple github dependencies. > I have overlooked the DISTFILES variable! It looks great, I'll try this > way. If everything comes from one or two MASTER_SITES you will be fine like that as well. Sooner or later, assuming there is a sane ecosystem, you may need to package things.
