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.
Miroslav Lachman
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
