Upgrade Tool

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Thu May 4 19:41:38 UTC 2006

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:23:08PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:

> > 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.
> All combinations don't need packages, but I'd like an easy way to build
> as many as half a dozen versions on the same machine so users can use
> the compiler and MPI version of their choice.  At this point the easiest
> way to handle that would be to build non-conflicting slave ports for the
> combinations I wanted but that starts to waste a lot of inodes pretty
> fast.

A few extra ports don't hurt, really - it's a minor perturbation on
the steady growth of the ports tree.  From my point of view, it's a
good feature of the slave port approach that it makes the developer
think a bit about what combinations are really needed as separate
packages (since they have to do a small bit of work to set up each
one).  Anyone adding n! slave ports is going to quickly get noticed
and smacked :-)

> Another option that could work for me would be to make it easier to
> maintain a local ports category so I could have my own slave ports.

You should be able to do that by just appending to SUBDIR and
CATEGORIES in a Makefile.local or similar.  It's been discussed
recently, anyway.

Or since this is for your own use you could just have one port and
write a trivial script that repeatedly packages it with your own set
of option combinations.

-------------- 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/20060504/03ffd3c9/attachment.pgp

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list