Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-16 Thread Clemens Lang
Hi, - On 14 Oct, 2014, at 16:12, Daniel J. Luke dl...@geeklair.net wrote: > We do have versionability in portgroups, it just hasn't been used much so far. Just for the record, this isn't true. The active-variants PortGroup exists in two versions due to an API change. On the issue at hand,

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-14 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > I suppose so. I never considered that there might be users that would > actually read a port's / portgroup's / base's code to validate it before > installing a port. Do such people actually exist? > > I exist, and I do it. > For what it

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-14 Thread Daniel J. Luke
On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> There's no difference in the capabilities of code in a portgroup vs code in >>> a portfile. >> >> portfiles are usually simpler than po

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-14 Thread Daniel J. Luke
On Oct 14, 2014, at 2:10 AM, Joshua Root wrote: > > On 2014-10-14 09:31 , Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> Another way to look at it is that generally the portgroup is unversioned >> (and an end user doesn't necessarily know which version of a portgroup was >> used when a particular port was installed)

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-13 Thread Joshua Root
On 2014-10-14 09:31 , Daniel J. Luke wrote: > Another way to look at it is that generally the portgroup is unversioned (and > an end user doesn't necessarily know which version of a portgroup was used > when a particular port was installed). JFYI, ${prefix}/var/macports/registry/portgroups now c

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-13 Thread Lawrence Velázquez
On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > >> it seems like that is a problem with base/ and our dev documentation (or >> lack of) which it would make sense to fix rather than work around it in that >> way. > > We don't have any doc

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-13 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> There's no difference in the capabilities of code in a portgroup vs code in >> a portfile. > > portfiles are usually simpler than portgroups (almost by definition). > > a portfile that look

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-13 Thread Daniel J. Luke
On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > I disagree that we should move as many portgroups as possible into ba

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-13 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >>> I disagree that we should move as many portgroups as possible into base. Moving the portgroups out of base and into the p

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-13 Thread Daniel J. Luke
On Oct 13, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> >>> I disagree that we should move as many portgroups as possible into base. >>> Moving the portgroups out of base and into the ports tree years ago has >>> been of great benefit in e

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-13 Thread Ryan Schmidt
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > >> I disagree that we should move as many portgroups as possible into base. >> Moving the portgroups out of base and into the ports tree years ago has been >> of great benefit in encouraging the development of portgroups. No matter how >>

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-10 Thread Daniel J. Luke
On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > On Sep 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > >> On Sep 28, 2014, at 2:55 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> Moving this code to a portgroup would make it possible for us to fix this >>> problem and any other problems that might come

Re: Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/

2014-10-09 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Sep 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Sep 28, 2014, at 2:55 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Moving this code to a portgroup would make it possible for us to fix this >> problem and any other problems that might come up later without having to >> produce a new MacPorts release.

Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/ (was Re: imake)

2014-09-29 Thread Daniel J. Luke
On Sep 28, 2014, at 2:55 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > Moving this code to a portgroup would make it possible for us to fix this > problem and any other problems that might come up later without having to > produce a new MacPorts release. I think we really should move in the other direction: -m