On Wednesday April 26 2017 13:32:47 Clemens Lang wrote: Hi,
> I really really don't think a PortGroup is the right way to do this. This > should > be done in base, with proper support of creating multiple packages from a > single > build and then optionally installing some of them, more like FreeBSD's ports > does things. As often I use a PortGroup only because it's a much more convenient way to develop and test new functionality, esp. the part that cannot be automated reliably anyway (indicating which files and directories have to go into the -dev port, or any number of "sub" ports). We don't know how many ports would be using the feature, so why spend time and effort making possibly complex changes to Base until we know that? There's also the point that ports using this particular new feature would impose users to upgrade if it's implemented in Base. I don't know if that'd be a precedent, but wouldn't like it if it is. I'd prefer to see Base as a kind of microkernel with a modular architecture (but that's just me). R
