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 f
> 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
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 an
> 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 the fact that
> th
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
> shoul
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.
> >
> > For flavors I w
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 t
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.
> > >
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 approac
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 perform
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 that
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
> 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 "custom"
version of their por
> 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, that
means the package n
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 how is it handled
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 comin
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 FLAVO
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
> like a
> rework of the
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 b
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 SCHED_4BS
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 sla
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
default flavor so tha
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:
>>
>>
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 the slave ports for n
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 (
25 matches
Mail list logo
