Hi Greg, tech-pkg@, On 12/11/2017 15:13, Greg Troxel wrote: > Pierre Pronchery <khorben%defora.org@localhost> writes: >> Please note this is not bumping anything nor updating references to >> cups-base's buildlink3.mk, with an exception for cups-filters where it >> would create a circular dependency otherwise. Let me know if it should >> be done right away though. > > I don't quite follow. If you want to make this change, then there needs > to be a working cups-base/buildlink3.mk file that refers to cups-base, From what I can tell, there is a working cups-base/buildlink3.mk. > and all the things that currently include cups/buildink3 need to be > changed to refer to cups-base/buildlink3 instead. Basically, after the Actually, not necessarily. In practice, now they only depend on cups-base; however cups/buildlink3.mk also depends on cups-base, so not only it builds, but it also makes sure the resulting setup is actually functional. I understand however that some users do not care about a functional cups, and therefore do not want the extra few megabytes of cups-filters installed. As I wrote earlier, I am about to update these links to cups-base and bump revisions accordingly. > change, everything has to be consistent and all the things that depend > on cups have to build ok. [...] You are right, I did not build every dependency of cups on every platform, every architecture, every version of the platform and architecture, with every compiler available, with and without cwrappers, and every possible combination of options available. But I tested that the new layout is consistent and functional. If you find something that breaks, let me know and I will try to help fix it. > I also don't follow the patches. You would be basically reimporting > cups as cups-base, changing the name, and basically removing the current > print/cups adding in its place a meta-package (we don't always put those > in meta-packages/, if they are smallish like this, so that's fine). That's exactly right. I do not want to move print/cups to a meta-package because it would then effectively be renamed - which is heavily discouraged. I think this allows for a perfectly smooth transition instead, transparent to the user. In fact it reproduces prior art in pkgsrc (eg devel/git and devel/git-base), which I used as inspiration directly. Cheers, -- khorben
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature