Subject: Re: Package naming and major versions [was Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/devel/gal20]
To: Rene Hexel <>
From: Johnny C. Lam <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 10/06/2004 00:01:14
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:03:57AM +1000, Rene Hexel wrote:
> On 06/10/2004, at 1:53 AM, Jaromir Dolecek wrote:
> >Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> >>What I had in mind was to create files (great minds think
> >>alike, eh, Al?) in all package category directories ("subordinate"
> >>catagories included) that just contain the lines:
> >>
> >>	.if exists("../")
> >>	.  include "../"
> >>	.endif
> >
> >I prefer if we'd keep the two-level naming scheme we use now - adding
> >yet another 'indirection' directory is not really necessary and makes
> >it unncessarily harder to figure what depends on what. Please keep
> >things simple.
>   Johnny, would it be possible to implement your changes in a way that 
> allows existing (2nd level) packages to remain unchanged?  I.e., only 
> 3rd (or further) level packages need to include and use 
> ${PKGSRCDIR} in their include statements?
>   This way we could gradually make these changes for packages that come 
> in different flavours (or versions).

It's possible, but I don't think the benefit is worth it.  The changes
that I foresee are very simple and very mechanical, so we should just
change all packages to use it rather than try to support two different
ways of writing package Makefiles.

Not that this is a project that I'm currently working on... I'm just
voicing some ideas from pkgsrcCon 2004 that haven't been pursued by
other developers so far.  And I tend to think in terms of possible
implementations, so please don't mistake my sample code for what will
be done in the end when we finally figure out how we plan on executing


	-- Johnny Lam <>