HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 05:41:17PM +0100, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think it's a nice to have and an improvement.
> It's quite clean, even if the number of Makefile's can really increase.
> 
> I've some questions:
> 
> Q1) It seems obvious (at least to me), that DOCS and EXAMPLES
> should/could become subpackages.
> How it could be handled by pkg? Are you thinking to add some "magic"
> to enable or disable the automatic installation of specific
> subpackages?

It depends having a subpackage for a bunch of README files is useless while
having a subpackage for ports with loads of html/pdf files would deserve it yes.

Note that there is "magic" planned in pkg at all :)
> 
> Q2) are we opening the door the -devel packages like some Linux distros?

That is an entirely different direction and this would be a policy discussion.

In short:
1/ technically, yes it would allow that
2/ is that what I am aiming at: not at all
> 
> Q3) Do you think there is a general way to decide what should stay an
> OPTION and what should/could become a FLAVOR?

Nope that would be probably mostly driven by common sense
> 
> Q4) Can FLAVORs be in CONFLICT with each others or only conflict-free
> FLAVOR will be accepted?
> If ports can depend to FLAVOR, strange CONFLICTS can arise..

yes flavor can conflict but pkg will detect the conflict and propose to replace
the previous flavor if needed
> 

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/20161222/7b1c1fe2/attachment.sig>