Working on FLAVOR support in portmaster

[Chris H]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:33:10 -0800 "David Wolfskill" <david at catwhisker.org> said

> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote:
> > ...
> > I'm working on FLAVOR support in portmaster. My version did already build
> > all updated ports, the FLAVOR parameter is passed to build sub-processes,
> > but there is still some confusion between multiple flavored versions of the
> > same port (installing the py27 version wants to deinstall the py36 version
> > and vice versa), which I still have to fix.
> 
> Thank you; that is encouraging.
> 
> > I'm not sure that I have time to complete the fix today, but it is not too
> > hard. Ports need to complement the port origin with the FLAVOR, where
> > appropriate (e.g. when a flavored destination is found in MOVED). Already
> > installed packages are annotated with "flavor" and that must be passed to
> > the build command, when that port is updated. Most other logic in portmaster
> > remains unaffected.
> 
> That seems reasonable.
> 
> > My work version has all non PKG_NG support stripped, but that is mainly to
> > not waste effort fixing irrelevant sub-routines.
> 
> Also reasonable, IMO.
> 
> > Is it acceptable, to have portmaster stop supporting the old package system?
> > AFAIK, there is no way that a modern ports tree with flavor support works
> > with a non-PKG_NG infrastructure?
> 
> I believe so: if for no other reason, one wishing to support such a
> non-PKG_NG infrastructure can certainly use an older version of
> portmaster.
The sensible side of me also agrees that this is probably a reasonable,
and efficient approach. But the practical side says there will likely
be some screaming on the mailing lists, once this change lands.
IMHO it might be a good idea to make a legacy branch, in the ports
tree before gutting the pre-NG stuff.

Just a thought. :)
> 
> > Regards, STefan
> > ....
> 
> Peace,
> david

--Chris