From nobody Thu Jan 25 03:46:33 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TL6Fh31Vzz57by7; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 03:46:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from postmaster@shaneware.biz) Received: from mail-relay2.dca2.superb.net (mail-relay2.dca2.superb.net [66.148.95.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TL6Fh1Grsz4KvJ; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 03:46:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from postmaster@shaneware.biz) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from ppp230-11.static.internode.on.net ([203.122.230.11] helo=[192.168.9.155]) by mail-relay2.dca2.superb.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (envelope-from ) id 1rSqhM-0003LD-KQ; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 22:46:41 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:16:33 +1030 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: Subpackage explanations To: Luca Pizzamiglio , FreeBSD Ports mailing list , freebsd-ports References: Content-Language: en-US From: Shane Ambler In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TL6Fh1Grsz4KvJ X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:14361, ipnet:66.148.95.0/24, country:US] On 24/1/24 19:58, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: > Hi porters! > > At the beginning of January, we merged the support to subpackages in the > framework. Sounds like some good work in the right direction. > *Use cases we want to tackle* > The first use case we want to get rid of is master/slave ports when slave > ports could be built with the master port. I don't see any mention of flavors. If I merge a slave port that builds the python bindings into the master port, can I still build multiple flavors for the subpackage? Any possibility that build steps can be defined to be repeated for each desired flavor? do-build-flavor: make --DPYVERS=${PY_FLAVOR} do-build-PY38: make --DUSE_FUTURES=yes > *Use cases we don't want to tackle (yet)* > Subpackages enable the adoption of micro-subpackages, a typical pattern for > Linux distributions that split a package in smaller ones: one with docs > (-doc), one with static libraries and headers (-dev), one with manpages > (-man), one with examples (-examples), and so on. To me that sounds like the easy first use case. Turn the doc/test/example options into subpackages. -- FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing Shane Ambler