DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-10
Re: packaging system (was: Re: GCC 3.3.2 kernel)
-On [20031031 13:22], ibotty (me@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>> how easy would it be to make two or three seperate plists? One for the
>> libraries/binaries/run-time, one for the documentation, and one for the
>> header files and other development stuff.
>> That way you could, through your application, specify what you want to
>> install. Personally, having just thought of this idea, I see this as a
>> better solution, since you don't need to create 2/3 different
>> ports/packages, but rather the standard which instead of 1 package
>> listing now has three to allow finer grained control.
>this is exactly what debian (and some rpm-distributions) do.
>they just split the (one) package into three.
You misread what I wrote. Let me clarify:
What I was aiming at was something like;
make BIN=yes DOC=yes DEVEL=no all install clean (in ports speak)
Or for a package:
pkg_install -o bin,doc portname
which will install both the binaries and documentation, but not the
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7 9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/~asmodai/diary/
Silence is one of the most effective forms of communication...