On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 04:49:22PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 16/06/2012 15:53, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > What could be added is a UNIQUENAMESUFFIX to be able to have a finer grain > > name. > > That's certainly possible, but I was thinking about your plans to create > sub-packages. As I understand it, you'll be building and installing > each port into a staging area, and then creating a number of different > packages from what's in the staging area. > > So for a port foo, you might create: > > foo-0.99 --- the foo application and libfoo.so.0 shared > library > foo-docs-0.99 --- documentation > foo-examples-0.99 --- example configurations etc. > foo-devlibs-0.99 --- *.h headers, libfoo.a static lib, profiling > libs and other things useful for developers. > > and so forth. So these are distinct packages all from one port with its > own UNIQUENAME and hence all using that port's OPTIONS settings, and all > built in one block. > > Having UNIQUENAMESUFFIX for docs, examples, devlibs etc. would imply all > of those are entirely separate ports, like the way bacula and > bacula-docs are handled at the moment. > > I can see there will need to be some sort of SUBPACKAGESUFFIXES variable > and associated gubbins in the ports makefiles, to do that, > plus something like tagging the entries in pkg-plist to identify which > sub-package they should belong to. > > Trying to mix that with UNIQUENAMESUFFIXes would get pretty complicated. > Not to mention the question of foo-devel -- is that the devel > sub-package of the foo port, or a separate foo-devel port?[*]
Yes you are right regards, Bapt
pgp4SeyYjhbcS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
