On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:31:53PM +0100, Omar Polo wrote:
>
> Thanks Marc and Stuart for the replies!
>
> Marc Espie writes:
>
> > [...]
> > If you don't have anything to package, you can always use the lesser known
> > features of BUILD_DEPENDS
> >
> > See bsd.port.mk(5).... you will probably find
> > BUILD_DEPENDS = some/path:patch
> >
> > to be more or less what you would need.
>
> It took me a while to understand, but now I get it. I didn't know it
> was possible to specify the target in BUILD_DEPENDS. But the problem is
> that I would have to create a port for every dependency. Generally
> speaking this seems the best approach, but in this case, since this
> would be the second common-lisp port, I don't think it would be optimal.
Well... there are lots of ways to deal with ports with several dependencies.
I don't know how it's architected, really.
Maybe having actual dependent ports which package would be even better ?
I don't know whether it makes sense to compile dependencies and bundle them
then do some kind of linking later... which is definitely what we do for
C, C++,perl...
as far as having several ports go, it's not as bad as it may seem.
Another reminder: the ports tree on OpenBSD is not a flat two level structure
you could very easily stash everything under the same prefix in the ports tree
> Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> writes:
> > On 2021/03/03 16:24, Omar Polo wrote:
> > [...]
> > Indeed MASTER_SITES can only go from <nothing> to 9, but as long as there's
> > a common base URL you can use the "DISTFILES=local{remote}suffix" syntax.
> > Here's an example for converting stumpwm to use this. Some ports do similar
> > for multiple github dependencies.
> I have overlooked the DISTFILES variable! It looks great, I'll try this
> way.
If everything comes from one or two MASTER_SITES you will be fine like that
as well.
Sooner or later, assuming there is a sane ecosystem, you may need to package
things.
No comments:
Post a Comment