Mike Porter mupi at
Sat Oct 11 00:11:10 PDT 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Friday 10 October 2003 09:13 am, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Another note regarding to slashpackage:
> There is currently no support for splitting into sub-packages.
> For applications, that is normally not needed, but libraries
> and interpreted languages often provide a huge set of files not
> always needed by an End User. For libraries this are the
> development files and static libaries. For interpreters additionally
> parts of the RTE might be useful to split out.
> But if this problem [and the other ones] can be solved, a combination
> of ports-like build scripts and an installation tree like slashpackage,
> could be a enough for all package system needs.

I think that a ports-like build script would (could?) respolve the issue of 
sub-packages.  The current ports system supports a variation on the theme, 
with allowing porters to specify dependencies for varous stages of the 
process (such as a something required for a package to build, but not 
required for a package to run, or a run-time dependency that isn't an 
install-time dependency).   By extending this mechanism (you can already do 
basically this line by specifiying internal variables within the file, and 
then calling 'make -DENABLE_NVGART'  Creating a port with a 'make 
- -DBUILD_DEVEL_FILES' (or 'make -DUSE_STATIC_LIBS') would install those files.  
This can easily be done today, with no modification whatsoever to the ports 
subsystem.  Taking some of those variables, and putting them in, 
could 'standardize' a place to put 'sub' packages, although it isn't (IMO) 
needed; the only thing we would gain is that if it is in, it 
would more likely be used by more porters.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)


More information about the Kernel mailing list