FreeLists / beports / [beports] Re: Ports not in Gentoo Portage

[Brecht Machiels <brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 18:59 +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Okay. I don't think the tables need to be / should be reordered.
> But this does remind me of the gcc2 vs. gcc4 Haiku issue. It wouldn't  
> look good in the table, so I suggest we document this further down, as  
> subheadings maybe?

We could add an extra column to the table, one for each compiler
version... but that would probably litter the portlogs.

Do you think it would be possible to use GCC4 as a default? As I
understand, there's only a difference between GCC2 and GCC4 when dealing
with C++ applications. Or am I missing something here?

> On another matter, on the OpenBeOS mailing list a proposal on a  
> package description format for future binary Haiku Optional Packages  
> has been posted. Maybe you want to take a look and see if parts can be  
> merged/aligned with your BePorts format.

What is the subject of this thread? Is that on the dev or the user ML?

I'm not sure what you mean by BePorts format. I did look at having
BePorter automatically create a binary installer package. I have looked
into creating a SoftwareValet package, but that would requir me te dig
into the package format. Ryan Leavengood did send me some information he
gathered on SV packages though. But as Haiku will use a different (more
open) package format, I decided it would be better to wait.

Regards,
Brecht


--
BePorts homepage - http://tools.assembla.com/BePorts
List archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/beports
Administrative contact: brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx