Re: -nox11, -x11, -qt, -tty, etc.

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:56:16PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
> In article <20080410183122.GA648%britannica.bec.de@localhost> Joerg wrote:
> : On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:49:25PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> : > That sounds like good incremental progress, and I think you should go
> : > ahead and do it.  Perhaps the ultimate solution will be something that
> : > feels like a config file with lines like:
> : > 
> : >   build foo with option bar, call it foo-bar
> : > 
> : > instead of the whole Makefile.
> 
>   No, the ultimate solution is not to require more than one package
> directory, but instead build multiple binary packages from one
> directory.
> 
> : I said it a long time ago, but for binary packages the following
> : approach can be used with pbulk easily:
> 
> : PKG_OPTION_SETS= set1 set2
> 
> : PKG_OPTIONS_SET.set1= foo -bar
> : PKGNAME_EXT.set1=
> : PKG_OPTIONS_SET.set2= bar
> : PKGNAME_EXT.set2=       bar
> 
> : and a corresponding entry in mk/pbulk + magic to include PKGNAME_EXT in
> : the right place.
> 
>   And as I said a long time ago, that is not sufficient: pkg and
> pkg-bar should conflict with each other.  Who handles that magic?

The same problem already exists. I see a number of approaches to solve
it.

(1) Enumerate all possible names and create conflicts for the ones not
currently selected. This applies to all builds.

(2) Just change the binary package name. Problem is updating a package
without loosing the option set.

(3) Define a new package delimiter that lists options/option sets. This
is IIRC similiar to what OpenBSD is doing. Needs support in pkg_install
and all tools.

The first is not different from what is done currently on an adhoc base.

Joerg