Hi Stuart, Jeremie, On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:46:33PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> writes: > >> I have a feeling that the FULLPKGPATH-lua needs a version suffix, but > >> couldn't find a satisfying way (although what I currently have doesn't > >> seem to cause any superficial issues). Any ideas? > > If you're talking about having an additional -lua52/-lua53 suffix, then > I can't see a reason for it and I'd find this confusing at best.
No, I meant shouldn't FULLPKGPATH be something like `devel/libmpack,-lua52`. Not sure. > > $ FLAVOR=lua53 make show=FULLPKGPATH-lua > > devel/libmpack,-lua,lua53 > > $ FLAVOR=lua53 make show=PKGNAMES > > libmpack-1.0.3 lua53-mpack-1.0.3-lua53 > ^^^^^^ > This doesn't look right, I expect "lua53-mpack-1.0.3", which is what > I get with Edd's tarball. I can't find a meaning for > "lua53-mpack-1.0.3-lua53": is it a lua53 FLAVOR of "lua53-mpack-1.0.3"? > AFAIK no other port is named lua53-foo-lua53. Right. This is what happens if you use PKGNAME-lua and not FULLPKGNAME-lua. Also note that once you use a FULLPKGPATH-lua, you also get warnings that you need a FULLPKGPATH-lua (although it is just a warning). > The port looks fine, but I find all this FULLPKG-fu confusing. > Splitting the port would make things more readable IMHO. It's not the most easy to understand, I must admit. Clearly lua version flavors and MULTIPACKAGES don't play well together. I'm not against splitting out the port into SUBDIRS, where each fetches the same DISTFILE, but I'd also like to hear what Stuart thinks about this. > Also: > - please use > FLAVORS = lua52 lua53 > FLAVOR ?= > just like in other lua ports > - y u no like libmpack.la? :) I've fixed those locally, but await to hear back on whether to split the port out. Thanks again. -- Best Regards Edd Barrett http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
