mezz7 at cox.net
Mon Nov 17 14:23:22 PST 2008
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:09:23 -0600, Jonathan <jonathan at kc8onw.net> wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:39:10 -0500 Jonathan <jonathan at kc8onw.net>
>>> 1) The handbrake build system unmodified uses wget to download all
>>> it's dependencies itself. The patches to modify the build system
>>> to not do this are fairly significant and are a maintenance
>>> headache. Would allowing the port to download it's dependencies
>>> itself be acceptable or do I need to continue using the ports
>>> distfile system and maintaining awkward patches?
>> Dependencies as in *_DEPENDS? If yes, please try to maintain those
> Handbrake custom patches many of the libraries it uses so I can't use
> system version of those libraries. The handbrake team strongly
> discourages building from source and wants people to use binaries so the
> only all-in-one source for the library tar files currently is their
> development server. To build handbrake while using FreeBSD ports
> distfiles involves patching the build system to not fetch and extract
> the archives and let FreeBSD do it which is a fairly large patch (nearly
> 1/3 of the file is involved in the patch).
>> Does this auto-fetch system has any provision for verifying the
>> integrity of those files? Like our checksums from distinfo.
> No it does not.
>>> 2) In addition to the above the developers have stated they would
>>> strongly prefer that we not download the dependencies directly from
>>> them as the server is not load balanced. In this case do we fetch
>>> them directly anyway, host them on FreeBSD controlled systems, or
>>> something else altogether?
>> Umm, handbrake's build system downloads them from where? Can't we
>> download from the same place? If not, yes, we can mirror them on
> See above, if we have the port built from source they would pretty much
> have to be mirrored on MASTER_SITE_LOCAL.
That's best solution if their bandwidth can't handles it.
>>> 3) The Handbrake developers prefer to directly distribute binaries
>>> rather than have people building handbrake themselves but this goes
>>> again the ports philosophy where building from source is the
>>> primary method and packages are a convenience. Should I make the
>>> port a stub that installs a pre-compiled binary like the teamspeak
>>> port does?
>> Do they make available binaries for all our supported OS versions?
>> What about head? What about other archs that i386? For short no,
>> please don't do that.
> If I choose to have the port build from source I can count on *not*
> getting any support from the development team as they are pretty dead
> set against anything other than pre-built binaries.
Screw them. Build your own binary is no difference from users' own binary.
Only a bit differences are machine arch and GCC options.
> Jonathan Stewart
mezz7 at cox.net - mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-ports