It was a peachy Wednesday, Oct 2 2013, 23:25:43 when Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> On 2013/10/02 19:09, Ido Admon wrote: > > > > > > It was a peachy Wednesday, Oct 2 2013, 21:46:01 when Stuart > > Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > > > > On 2013/10/02 11:21, Ido Admon wrote: > > > > It was a peachy Wednesday, Oct 2 2013, 15:00:03, when Landry > > > > Breuil wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 02:36:44PM -0400, ido...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > ok here's a version with only one subpackage, the > > > > > > htmlviewer, and FULLPKGNAME > > > > > etc. \ > > > > > > i can't really get webkit to build atm, so i can't test > > > > > > much. > > > > > > > > > > I dont think stuart meant this, it was rather an issue with > > > > > the flavors handling. I think we need to keep those > > > > > subpackages as they are for dependency reasons, just fix the > > > > > pkgnames for flavoured builds. > > > > > > > > > > Landry > > > > > > > > well, since the bogofilter and the spamassasing don't have any > > > > LIB_DEPENDS, only RUN_DEPENDS, how about putting them in > > > > (another...) flavor? "spamfilters" maybe? > > > > > > IIRC quirks isn't enough to handle merging two old subpackages > > > into one new one. Rolling into the main package should work though > > > spamassassin is a fairly hefty set of dependencies, more than many > > > users would want I think. > > > > > > I would suggest keeping the original bogofilter/spamassassin > > > subpackages and just overwriting FULLPKGNAME/FULLPKGPATH.. > > > > > > > > > wouldn't they be in the main package if they're a FLAVOR? > > FLAVOR is where some files which are always built (for example the > main binary) changes depending on build options (for example, the ldap > flavour where the main binary is linked to the openldap libraries). > > Subpackages are used where some files are *only* built if you use > certain build options, and the main program can run without them (for > example, plugin modules). > > When a build option just chooses whether or not to build a plugin > module, we use subpackages. If we did this using flavours we would > need to build the whole program several times over with different > combinations of options, and most of it would be the same, there > would just be some extra parts in some of the builds.. > > With subpackages we build once, and the user chooses which parts they > want at install time. > > So, these wouldn't be FLAVORs at all. i see. thanks for taking the time to explain. here, then, is another attempt:
claws-diff
Description: Binary data
