On 02/03/13 09:26, Stuart Cassoff wrote:
> On 02/03/13 09:02, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2013/02/03 06:58, Stuart Cassoff wrote:
>>> On 02/03/13 04:44, Landry Breuil wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 12:38:40PM -0500, Stuart Cassoff wrote:
>>>>> Provides script-level access to Tcl's threading capabilities.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> If i get it right it needs tcl sources to build ? Why not making it a
>>>> subpackage or bundle it with main tcl ?
>>>
>>> Starting with 8.6, several packages are bundled with the main Tcl
>>> distribution.
>>> I've split them into separate ports; not all are ready right now.
>>> The idea is to use the 8.6 tarball now and change a port to use the package
>>> distfile whenever a package is updated.
>>>
>>> No bundled packages need the Tcl sources to build.
>>> The Tcl people (not me) decided with 8.6 to start bundling packages.
>>> I had greater interest in getting 8.6 in than complicating things.
>>> Some people might like to take all this and make subpackages but I'd
>>> prefer to make separate ports and finally, put some notes into the
>>> README mentioning the bundled packages and which ports would need
>>> to be installed to have a 'full' 8.6+packages installation.
>>>
>>>> A better option would be to depend on tcl/8.6:patch so that you don't
>>>> need to update tcl version in two places when updating it, and you dont
>>>> need the extra DISTFILES handling. See for example how mplayer
>>>> build_depends on ffmpeg:patch.
>>>
>>> I'll have a look, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stu
>>> (not yet fully caffeinated)
>>>
>>
>> Especially as there will be more ports than just this one, it makes
>> sense to sort out the handling of this a bit..
>>
>> DISTNAME = thread2.7.0
>> PKGNAME = tclthread-2.7.0
>> DISTFILES = tcl8.6.0-src.tar.gz
>> WRKDIST = ${WRKDIR}/tcl8.6.0/pkgs/${DISTNAME}
>>
>> so... I think DISTNAME should get used for its normal purpose i.e.
>> the name of the distfile (DISTFILES is normally just used if you have
>> additional files). If not, then at the very least DISTFILES should
>> move up with DISTNAME/PKGNAME as otherwise it's more difficult than
>> it should be to see where the files are coming from; might be important
>> if someone who doesn't know the Tcl ports particularly well if they
>> have to update in a hurry e.g. for a security fix.
>>
>> I presume there will be a lot of commonality between this and the
>> ports for other modules, so it would make sense to arrange them in a
>> subdirectory so Makefile.inc could be used, or use a module.
>>
>> I would prefer a subdirectory (maybe lang/tcl86-extensions or
>> something..?) to help keep them together rather than stuffing more
>> things in the hugely busy devel/ directory.
>>
>> Hardcoding 8.6.0 in several places seems like a bad idea, I think
>> this should come from a module or Makefile.inc somewhere.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The 8.6 'core' and the bundled packages are all available as separate
> tarballs.
> I'd like to go that route and forget about the bundled stuff altogether.
> The main push behind the bundling was to get TDBC released and 'out there'.
> I doubt we'll see (m)any more packages bundled in subsequent releases.
> I don't know what to do about directory overcrowding, not really my bailiwick.
> Here's version of the port that uses its own distfile instead of the tcl-bundled one. Stu
tclthread-2.7.0-port.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip
