On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:09:23 -0600, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:39:10 -0500 Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) The handbrake build system unmodified uses wget to download all
it's dependencies itself. The patches to modify the build system
to not do this are fairly significant and are a maintenance
headache. Would allowing the port to download it's dependencies
itself be acceptable or do I need to continue using the ports
distfile system and maintaining awkward patches?
Dependencies as in *_DEPENDS? If yes, please try to maintain those
patches.
Handbrake custom patches many of the libraries it uses so I can't use
system version of those libraries. The handbrake team strongly
discourages building from source and wants people to use binaries so the
only all-in-one source for the library tar files currently is their
development server. To build handbrake while using FreeBSD ports
distfiles involves patching the build system to not fetch and extract
the archives and let FreeBSD do it which is a fairly large patch (nearly
1/3 of the file is involved in the patch).
Does this auto-fetch system has any provision for verifying the
integrity of those files? Like our checksums from distinfo.
No it does not.
2) In addition to the above the developers have stated they would
strongly prefer that we not download the dependencies directly from
them as the server is not load balanced. In this case do we fetch
them directly anyway, host them on FreeBSD controlled systems, or
something else altogether?
Umm, handbrake's build system downloads them from where? Can't we
download from the same place? If not, yes, we can mirror them on
MASTER_SITE_LOCAL.
See above, if we have the port built from source they would pretty much
have to be mirrored on MASTER_SITE_LOCAL.
That's best solution if their bandwidth can't handles it.
3) The Handbrake developers prefer to directly distribute binaries
rather than have people building handbrake themselves but this goes
again the ports philosophy where building from source is the
primary method and packages are a convenience. Should I make the
port a stub that installs a pre-compiled binary like the teamspeak
port does?
Do they make available binaries for all our supported OS versions?
What about head? What about other archs that i386? For short no,
please don't do that.
If I choose to have the port build from source I can count on *not*
getting any support from the development team as they are pretty dead
set against anything other than pre-built binaries.
Screw them. Build your own binary is no difference from users' own binary.
Only a bit differences are machine arch and GCC options.
Cheers,
Mezz
Thanks,
Jonathan Stewart
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
