HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

[Miroslav Lachman]

Matthew Seaman wrote on 2016/12/19 09:45:
> On 19/12/2016 07:47, David Demelier wrote:
>>> I have been working for a while on 2 long standing feature request for the ports
>>> tree: flavors and subpackages.
>>>
>>> For flavors I would like to propose a simple approach first which is more like a
>>> rework of the slave ports for now:
>>>
>>> Examples available here:
>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8840 (with the implementation)
>>> and
>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8843
>>>
>>> Design: introduce a 3rd level in the hierarchy and make it work a bit like slave
>>> ports
>>>
>>> pros:
>>> - all slave ports are self hosted under the same directory: easier for
>>>    maintenance
>>> - should work with all existing tools
>>>
>> This is what I really wanted for years especially for ports like spell
>> checker. Some are in dedicated categories such as french/aspell while
>> other are in textproc/<lang>-aspell and that's a big mess.
>>
>> OpenBSD ports has something like textproc/aspell/<lang> and that is
>> very nice and clean. If the plan is to do the same, that is definitely
>> a major improvement.
>>
>
> I really like this idea, although it's going to add a lot of extra
> directories and very similar small Makefiles to the ports.  Every python
> port would grow flavours to support two major versions of python just
> for starters, and those additional Makefiles would be almost identical
> across the python2 flavour and across the python3 flavour.

Can this be processed by some code in Mk/bsd.*.mk?
I mean if we can add something to the main Makefile then we don't need 
to add subdirectories and sub-Makefiles for each Python module port.

Miroslav Lachman