Guido Falsi madpilot at FreeBSD.org
Wed Sep 27 13:48:16 UTC 2017

On 09/27/2017 15:24, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 27/9/17 8:17 pm, Stefan Esser wrote:
>> Am 27.09.17 um 13:52 schrieb Julian Elischer:
>>> On 27/9/17 4:20 pm, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>>> Before this gets too far down the road I would like to suggest that we
>>> quickly formalise some nomenclature
>>> or we will have 200 different ideas as to how to do the same thing;
>>> I would like to propose the following possible "examples of official"
>>> flavours:
>>> -nodocs         ..  nearly every port has a DOCS option..  a way to
>>> automatically turn it off globally and generate said pkgs would be good.
>>> -minimal ..  smallest possible feature set.. probably used just to
>>> satisfy some stupid dependency.
>>> -kitchensink    ..  speaks for itself .. options lit up like a christmas
>>> tree
>>> -runtime        ..  no .a files, include files, development
>>> documentation or sources ..
>>>                      might only contain a single libxx.so.N file, or a
>>> single binary executable.
>> No, these are no good examples for flavours, as I understand them ...
> why not?
> that's part of the problem here. It's not really defined..
> sub packages?  flavours?  what's the difference?

While it's not well defined there's a simple euristics which can be applied:

Can two packages be obtained from a single build process of the ports?

yes -> subpackages

this applies when the produced binaries and other parts are the same
with and without a specific option. The only differentiating thing is if
specific files are included or not in the resulting package.

doc/nodoc usually falls in this category.

no -> flavour

this can happen because changing the options actually changes the
produced binaries and the libraries it links too, so I need to build the
port two times with different options.

x11/nox11 usually falls in this category.

There can be grey areas I bet...

Guido Falsi <madpilot at FreeBSD.org>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list