HEADSUP: FLAVORS (initial version) and subpackages proposals

Luca Pizzamiglio luca.pizzamiglio at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 16:41:39 UTC 2016


I think it's a nice to have and an improvement.
It's quite clean, even if the number of Makefile's can really increase.

I've some questions:

Q1) It seems obvious (at least to me), that DOCS and EXAMPLES
should/could become subpackages.
How it could be handled by pkg? Are you thinking to add some "magic"
to enable or disable the automatic installation of specific

Q2) are we opening the door the -devel packages like some Linux distros?

Q3) Do you think there is a general way to decide what should stay an
OPTION and what should/could become a FLAVOR?

Q4) Can FLAVORs be in CONFLICT with each others or only conflict-free
FLAVOR will be accepted?
If ports can depend to FLAVOR, strange CONFLICTS can arise..

Thanks for the great job! I'll keep contributing as much as I can.

Best regards,

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Franco Fichtner <franco at lastsummer.de> wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2016, at 9:42 AM, Franco Fichtner <franco at lastsummer.de> wrote:
>> To emphasise on this:
> And lastly... if we have the automatic "default" flavour that is
> defined by the OPTIONS_DEFAULT knobs, we could finally avoid pkg
> upgrading custom builds by knowing that somebody built a "custom"
> version of their port and that there is no equivalent to upgrade
> to.
> This is exciting!
> Cheers,
> Franco
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list