On 08/02/2014 10:33, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.02.2014 11:29, schrieb Matthew Seaman: > >> Other than getting over the hump of implementing all this, will this >> result in a massively increased workload for port maintainers? It >> shouldn't. Essentially one port will now generate several sub-packages >> instead of one package. This will be automatic: just dividing up the >> files from staging into different pkg tarballs according to tags given >> in pkg-plist. Tags which frequently already exist according to >> OPTIONS_SUB. It also means that in a lot of cases we will be compiling >> all the different optional parts of a port regularly, so problems with >> obscure parts should come to light more quickly. Also the oft repeated >> complaint that lang/php5 doesn't enable mod_php5 by default: that goes away. > > Consider this a proposal: Will we optionally have an alternate way to > mention separate pkg-plist files instead, or just use @package ... > @closepackage markers instead of PLIST-SUB markup? > > I think that pkg-plist is already "decorated" beyond recognition for > some ports with possibly three %%PLIST_SUB_TAG%% on one line.
The code hasn't been written yet. Anything is possible.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
