[CFT] UNIQUENAME patches

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 04:49:22PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 16/06/2012 15:53, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > What could be added is a UNIQUENAMESUFFIX to be able to have a finer grain name.
> 
> That's certainly possible, but I was thinking about your plans to create
> sub-packages.  As I understand it, you'll be building and installing
> each port into a staging area, and then creating a number of different
> packages from what's in the staging area.
> 
> So for a port foo, you might create:
> 
>     foo-0.99          --- the foo application and libfoo.so.0 shared
>                           library
>     foo-docs-0.99     --- documentation
>     foo-examples-0.99 --- example configurations etc.
>     foo-devlibs-0.99  --- *.h headers, libfoo.a static lib, profiling
>                           libs and other things useful for developers.
> 
> and so forth.  So these are distinct packages all from one port with its
> own UNIQUENAME and hence all using that port's OPTIONS settings, and all
> built in one block.
> 
> Having UNIQUENAMESUFFIX for docs, examples, devlibs etc. would imply all
> of those are entirely separate ports, like the way bacula and
> bacula-docs are handled at the moment.
> 
> I can see there will need to be some sort of SUBPACKAGESUFFIXES variable
> and associated gubbins in the ports makefiles, to do that,
> plus something like tagging the entries in pkg-plist to identify which
> sub-package they should belong to.
> 
> Trying to mix that with UNIQUENAMESUFFIXes would get pretty complicated.
> Not to mention the question of foo-devel -- is that the devel
> sub-package of the foo port, or a separate foo-devel port?[*]

Yes you are right

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120616/62647de3/attachment.pgp