Upgrade Tool

[Kris Kennaway]

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:39:36AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:57:27PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:41:55AM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> > > Aren Olvalde Tyr wrote:
> > > > Perhaps it would be good, if, say on the corresponding port entry on the 
> > > > FreeBSD ports webpage, it listed all the options used for building the binary 
> > > > package. For example, for the "Package" link, instead of simply linking to 
> > > > the package, it could link to a page entry listing all of the build options 
> > > > used, with the package download link at the bottom. Or something like that. 
> > > > 
> > > > Just an idea. What do people think? 
> > > 
> > > I'd even go further. This is something I have been thinking about on and
> > > off. Namely, a FLAVOUR system for packages. A maintainer specifies up to
> > > three FLAVOURs per port, which set various flags for building the port.
> > 
> > In FreeBSD land these are called "slave ports", and you can have as
> > many as you like.  I don't have any interest in adding a separate
> > "flavour" system in parallel to this.
> 
> With MPI based parallel code there are times where I think a flavor
> system might scale better, but I haven't done the work to expose the
> non-scaling yet.  The problem is that we've got ~5 versions of MPI
> in the tree, but each one of those really should be buildable with
> different C and Fortran compilers so you could easily see 50+ MPIs.
> Multiple each applicaiton by that and things get crazy. :)

Do all combinations really need packages?  With or without flavours
you wouldn't even think about building packages for all possible
combinations of build options for a port.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060504/475fd216/attachment.pgp