On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 05:41:17PM +0100, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: > Hi, > > I think it's a nice to have and an improvement. > It's quite clean, even if the number of Makefile's can really increase. > > I've some questions: > > Q1) It seems obvious (at least to me), that DOCS and EXAMPLES > should/could become subpackages. > How it could be handled by pkg? Are you thinking to add some "magic" > to enable or disable the automatic installation of specific > subpackages?
It depends having a subpackage for a bunch of README files is useless while having a subpackage for ports with loads of html/pdf files would deserve it yes. Note that there is "magic" planned in pkg at all :) > > Q2) are we opening the door the -devel packages like some Linux distros? That is an entirely different direction and this would be a policy discussion. In short: 1/ technically, yes it would allow that 2/ is that what I am aiming at: not at all > > Q3) Do you think there is a general way to decide what should stay an > OPTION and what should/could become a FLAVOR? Nope that would be probably mostly driven by common sense > > Q4) Can FLAVORs be in CONFLICT with each others or only conflict-free > FLAVOR will be accepted? > If ports can depend to FLAVOR, strange CONFLICTS can arise.. yes flavor can conflict but pkg will detect the conflict and propose to replace the previous flavor if needed > Best regards, Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
