HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:25:36PM +0100, Matthieu Volat wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:31:43 +0100
> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the ports
> > tree: flavors and subpackages.
> > 
> > For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more like a
> > rework of the slave ports for now:
> > 
> > Examples available here:
> > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8840 (with the implementation)
> > and
> > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8843
> > 
> > Design: introduce a 3rd level in the hierarchy and make it work a bit like slave
> > ports
> > 
> > pros:
> > - all slave ports are self hosted under the same directory: easier for
> >   maintenance
> > - should work with all existing tools
> > 
> > cons:
> > - hackish: it is not really much more than a slave port
> > - it adds plenty of new Makefiles :(
> > 
> > I think anyway this is an improvement
> > 
> > Next step after that is in would be to extend it to allow some dependency on "I
> > depend on whatever flavor if port X"
> > 
> > Subpackages:
> > Design:
> > Add a new macro MULTI_PACKAGES
> > flag plist with an @pkg{suffixofthesubpackage} file
> > the framework will split the plist into small plist and create all the packages
> > All variables like COMMENT can be overridden with a COMMENT_${suffixofthesubpackage}
> > 
> > pros:
> > - simple and working almost now
> > - allow to simplify lots of ports
> > - options friendly (<optionname>_PACKAGE automatically appends a new entry to
> >   MULTI_PACKAGES)
> > 
> > cons:
> > - will break the paradigm that certain tools depend on (portmaster/portupgrade
> >   in particular are a huge problem since they are not actively maintained)
> > 
> > Example of the usage:
> > https://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/multipackage.diff
> > 
> > Note that I took the mpg123 as an example because it was a simple one to test
> > not because it may need subpackages
> > 
> > As a result you build 3 packages:
> > mpg123 (the runtime tools)
> > mpg123-lib: the runtime libraries
> > mpg123-sndio: the sndio plugin
> > 
> > LIB_DEPENDS on ports depending on libmpg123.so does not have to be changed, the
> > framework already automatically register only the mpg123-lib as a dependency and
> > not others.
> > 
> > Not the example is missing one thing: a dependency between mpeg123-lib and
> > mpg123
> > 
> > The second is not ready yet and would take time to land
> > 
> > Any comment?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Bapt
> 
> Does this approach would manage a file that differ between flavors? Let's say there a libfoo.so file that behave differently wheter an option A is selected or not, but is still present in both cases. 

Yes
> 
> On another note, I kinda liked the macports approach to use the "+" separator regarding naming flavors/options, it allows to better distinguish what in the package name and what are the selected options, and handled itself quite well with multiple instances, like "vim+nls+python+x11"... Did you consider something like that?

No because, actually there were some ports doing that in the past. and we
removed that because it makes it hard to identify programatically packages

Also not that the information about the options used are already stored in the
package and pkg can show them to you

Best regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20161222/4dff04fb/attachment.sig>