tech-pkg archive

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

binary pkg "variants" ? [was: Re: Package split or package options?]

On Dec 4, 2013, at 18:35 , David Holland 
<> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:13:15PM +0000, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
>> As a purveyor of a binary package distribution, I would always prefer
>> separate packages.  Users are going to have different needs, and it
>> sucks to force a lot of them to have to build from source.
> ...and I would like to figure out how to make options more useful for
> binary packages.

I've just thought of that too…

We always have to rebuild some of packages we use after a binary upgrade 
(because the defaults for some of the packages are not containing the knobs we 
need to have enabled.

I noticed the way MacPorts done it and it looks reasonable ok. They name the 
package "variants" as: pkgname @version+option(s). Perhaps pkgsrc could name 
those alternative bin pkgs as: pkgname+option(s)-version ?

OTOH, it would too time-consuming to build all pkgs with all the different 
make-option combinations, so instead a new variable in the Makefile (eg. 
ALSO_MAKE_BIN_PKG_WITH=tls (ok, not an optimal name, but you get the idea…)) 
could be created to make the "extra" bin pkgs + make-option(s) that's missing 
Then the maintainer (or any pkgsrc-dev) could add any new pkg bin options that 
is asked for, without influencing the old defaults.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index