Subject: Re: ports FLAVORS on pkgsrc (and postfix)
To: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
From: Stephen Borrill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/25/2007 09:25:42
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>> Try "make show-options" someday...
> One significant difference is that OpenBSD allows packaging these
> different "flavors" with unique package names and sub packages (or multi
> packages). This makes it easier and quicker for end-users.
> For example (look at option or options after the version):
> a2ps-4.13bp3-letter.tgz or a2ps-4.13bp3-a4.tgz
> aalib-1.2p0-no_x11.tgz or aalib-1.2p0.tgz
> aterm-0.4.2p0-big5-lite.tgz or aterm-0.4.2p0-lite.tgz or aterm-0.4.2p0-big5.tgz
> NetBSD does it two ways: have a separate package (separate directory in
> pkgsrc) or custom build your own (using PKG_OPTIONS).
> It would be nice if a lot of our options automatically could be made into
> packages with unique file names too. It seems like I saw a proposal about
> that for pkgsrc.
I certainly thought about proposing this. But how do we deal with packages
with several options? Do we do it as incremental to PKG_SUGGESTED_OPTIONS?
e.g. pkg-1.2.3+opt1-opt2.tgz (where opt1 is extra, but we've disabled
opt2). Like the above OpenBSD examples, these don't show what the default
options are and the binary pkg name would alter if PKG_SUGGESTED_OPTIONS
changed. Or do we add all the options on the end (dependent on
PKG_OPTIONS_INNAME or suck like being set in mk.conf)?
And then there's the issue of bulk builds of course...
And wildcard adding of dependencies.