niamkik <niamkik@protonmail.com> writes:
>> For interpreters there's often good reason to have multiple versions
>> (see php, python, lua, ruby) and if there's a good reason and
>> somebody is willing to maintain then I wouldn't object to that.
>> (That latter point is key though, if it's not going to be actively
>> maintained then it really wants keeping simple).
>
> It's quite okay for me. I am documenting the process right know to maintain each individual version of Erlang for OpenBSD. It should be easier for me in few days/weeks.
I would still strive for the minimal number of erlang version to keep.
If all the dependent ports software can be built with a single (most
supported?) version we'll come out ahead with less stuff.
>> Most of the dependencies are either already broken (riak, rabbitmq),
>> or can handle at least up to 23 (rebar3, elixir). The others are rebar
>> (no longer maintained and only used in ports as a dependency of riak)
>> and tsung (no indication whether it will work or not and doesn't exactly
>> seem active upstream).
>>
>> (riak is a bit special anyway, seems they really want it to be built with
>> a patched Erlang..)
>
> I started to rework on these ports with previous ported version. I have this list:
>
> - benchmarks/tsung
> - databases/riak
> - devel/rebar
> - devel/rebar3
> - lang/elixir
> - net/rabbitmq
>
> The goal is to also add other Erlang application directly in the ports like VerneMQ or Wings3D for example.
Let the application requirements guide the set of compilers to support.
Thanks
Greg
No comments:
Post a Comment