Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On 12/18/2016 4:31 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > ports > tree: flavors and subpackages. > > For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more > like a > rework of the slave ports

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

> On 23 Dec 2016, at 10:34 AM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > > But we don't have that now. For example dns/py-dnspython can create > py27-dnspython, py33-dnspython, py34-dnspython, py35-dnspython - four > different packages from one origin, one Makefile. Noticed that too. This

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

Baptiste Daroussin wrote on 2016/12/22 21:08: On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:12:02PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: Matthew Seaman wrote on 2016/12/19 09:45: On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the ports tree: flavors

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

> On 22 Dec, 2016, at 13:04, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > The clean way would be to to just have a new variable in a given port that > describes the possible variations. But that would break all existing external > tools that deals with the ports tree. Because they all rely on

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 05:41:17PM +0100, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: > Hi, > > I think it's a nice to have and an improvement. > It's quite clean, even if the number of Makefile's can really increase. > > I've some questions: > > Q1) It seems obvious (at least to me), that DOCS and EXAMPLES >

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:25:36PM +0100, Matthieu Volat wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:31:43 +0100 > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > > ports > > tree: flavors and subpackages. > >

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 01:53:35PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: > On 12/18/16 19:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > > ports > > tree: flavors and subpackages. > > [...] > > Off topic, I know, but might

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:12:02PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote on 2016/12/19 09:45: > > On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: > > > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for > > > > the ports > > > > tree: flavors and subpackages. > >

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:45:36AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: > >> I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > >> ports > >> tree: flavors and subpackages. > >> > >> For flavors I would like to propose a simple

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 07:11:11PM +1100, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > Thanks Bapt et al, > > I use FreeBSD and the ports system extensively, we build everything from > source and largely customise approx 25% of the 900 packages we rely upon. > I'm more than a little concerned to have changes

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:12:04AM +0100, Franco Fichtner wrote: > And lastly... if we have the automatic "default" flavour that is > defined by the OPTIONS_DEFAULT knobs, we could finally avoid pkg > upgrading custom builds by knowing that somebody built a "custom" > version of their port and

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

Hi, I think it's a nice to have and an improvement. It's quite clean, even if the number of Makefile's can really increase. I've some questions: Q1) It seems obvious (at least to me), that DOCS and EXAMPLES should/could become subpackages. How it could be handled by pkg? Are you thinking to add

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

> On 20 Dec 2016, at 9:42 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote: > > To emphasise on this: And lastly... if we have the automatic "default" flavour that is defined by the OPTIONS_DEFAULT knobs, we could finally avoid pkg upgrading custom builds by knowing that somebody built a

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

> On 20 Dec 2016, at 9:27 AM, Franco Fichtner wrote: > > We shouldn't use "-" or "/" anyway, should we? Please no fancy things > like "~" or so. No arbitrary package names... To emphasise on this: A flavour should act as a full replacement of its unflavoured package,

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

Hi, > On 19 Dec 2016, at 1:31 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more > like a > rework of the slave ports for now: This progression sure is nice to see! I like "category/portname/flavour" origin a lot, but

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

Thanks Bapt et al, I use FreeBSD and the ports system extensively, we build everything from source and largely customise approx 25% of the 900 packages we rely upon. I'm more than a little concerned to have changes performed against the ports infrastructure. As our primary sources of (whats

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On 19/12/2016 18:53, George Mitchell wrote: > On 12/18/16 19:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the >> ports >> tree: flavors and subpackages. >> [...] > > Off topic, I know, but might this eventually lead to

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:31:43 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > ports > tree: flavors and subpackages. > > For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more >

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On 12/19/16 19:53, George Mitchell wrote: On 12/18/16 19:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: Hi all, I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the ports tree: flavors and subpackages. [...] Off topic, I know, but might this eventually lead to FLAVORS for base? I would

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On 12/18/16 19:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > ports > tree: flavors and subpackages. > [...] Off topic, I know, but might this eventually lead to FLAVORS for base? I would be so grateful to have a

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

Matthew Seaman wrote on 2016/12/19 09:45: On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the ports tree: flavors and subpackages. For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more like a rework of the

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Why can't you have both flavoured and unflavoured variants of the same > port -- eg. devel/example as well as devel/example/foo and > devel/example/bar ? It seems like it would make sense to allow devel/example to be a

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote: >> I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the >> ports >> tree: flavors and subpackages. >> >> For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more >> like a >> rework of the slave ports for now: >>

Re: HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

2016-12-19 1:31 GMT+01:00 Baptiste Daroussin : > Hi all, > > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the > ports > tree: flavors and subpackages. > > For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more > like a > rework of

HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

Hi all, I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the ports tree: flavors and subpackages. For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more like a rework of the slave ports for now: Examples available here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8840