On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:23:33PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > Hi, > > had a look at xfburn > (https://git.xfce.org/apps/xfburn/tree/README?id=xfburn-0.5.4) which > requires libisofs/libburn, for which openbsd support was added around > 1.4.6 - and then i realized we had sysutils/xorriso which was recently > imported. > > It turns out 'GNU xorriso' (ie > https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso_eng.html) is a static > compilation of libraries from libburnia project > (http://libburnia-project.org/), ie libburn (providing cdrskin binary); > libisofs, and libisoburn (on top of both previous libs, and also > providing xorriso binary) - > https://dev.lovelyhq.com/libburnia/web/wikis/Xorriso also explains more > in detail this relationship. > > So i'd like to replace sysutils/xorriso by three ports for those > separate libraries - that's the 3 new ports in the attached archive - > and there's a separate port for xfburn which could be seen as a demo > gui. > > I'm thiking of splitting libisoburn in 3 subpackages (it's not in the > attached tarball but the splitting is trivial): > -main (ie libisoburn), containing the libs/headers only > -xorriso (ie xorriso, with @pkgpath/@conflict to upgrade from > sysutils/xorriso), containing the xorriso binaries/manpages (ie the current > content of sysutils/xorriso) and depending on the latter > -gui (xorriso-gui?), containing only xorriso-tcltk > (https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso-tcltk-screen.gif), as this one > should > RDEP on TCL/TK (it is a missing dependency of the current xorriso port) > and it'd be a heavy dependency for xorriso itself. > > What do ppl think about this rationale ?
Ping ? anyone willing to okay the mechanical ports removal/layout change? Landry
