tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: -nox11, -x11, -qt, -tty, etc.

Dieter Baron wrote:
In article <> Joerg wrote:
: On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:49:25PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
: > That sounds like good incremental progress, and I think you should go
: > ahead and do it.  Perhaps the ultimate solution will be something that
: > feels like a config file with lines like:
: > : > build foo with option bar, call it foo-bar : > : > instead of the whole Makefile.

  No, the ultimate solution is not to require more than one package
directory, but instead build multiple binary packages from one

Yes, I agree with this. It should be done with just a single package directory. However, as we work toward that, I'd like to proceed with my proposal which I view as a step along the way.

: I said it a long time ago, but for binary packages the following
: approach can be used with pbulk easily:

: PKG_OPTION_SETS= set1 set2

: PKG_OPTIONS_SET.set1= foo -bar
: PKG_OPTIONS_SET.set2= bar
: PKGNAME_EXT.set2=       bar

: and a corresponding entry in mk/pbulk + magic to include PKGNAME_EXT in
: the right place.

  And as I said a long time ago, that is not sufficient: pkg and
pkg-bar should conflict with each other.  Who handles that magic?

This is outside the scope of the original thread, but I will answer here.

We need to have the package tools themselves be "options"- or "option-sets"-aware so that Dewey comparisons and conflicts can be appropriately expressed. That is separate, though related, to the machinery in pkgsrc/mk that would be needed to generate the unique package names per options/option-sets. I will need to look back in the archives for the discussions on proposed package naming conventions, but the implementation for the machinery in pkgsrc/mk is more-or-less what is outlined by Joerg above.


        -- Johnny C. Lam

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index