replace sysutils/xorriso by libburn/libisofs/libisoburn & import xfburn

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

replace sysutils/xorriso by libburn/libisofs/libisoburn & import xfburn

Landry Breuil-5
Hi,

had a look at xfburn
(https://git.xfce.org/apps/xfburn/tree/README?id=xfburn-0.5.4) which
requires libisofs/libburn, for which openbsd support was added around
1.4.6 - and then i realized we had sysutils/xorriso which was recently
imported.

It turns out 'GNU xorriso' (ie
https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso_eng.html) is a static
compilation of libraries from libburnia project
(http://libburnia-project.org/), ie libburn (providing cdrskin binary);
libisofs, and libisoburn (on top of both previous libs, and also
providing xorriso binary) -
https://dev.lovelyhq.com/libburnia/web/wikis/Xorriso also explains more
in detail this relationship.

So i'd like to replace sysutils/xorriso by three ports for those
separate libraries - that's the 3 new ports in the attached archive -
and there's a separate port for xfburn which could be seen as a demo
gui.

I'm thiking of splitting libisoburn in 3 subpackages (it's not in the
attached tarball but the splitting is trivial):
-main (ie libisoburn), containing the libs/headers only
-xorriso (ie xorriso, with @pkgpath/@conflict to upgrade from
sysutils/xorriso), containing the xorriso binaries/manpages (ie the current
content of sysutils/xorriso) and depending on the latter
-gui (xorriso-gui?), containing only xorriso-tcltk
(https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso-tcltk-screen.gif), as this one should
RDEP on TCL/TK (it is a missing dependency of the current xorriso port)
and it'd be a heavy dependency for xorriso itself.

What do ppl think about this rationale ?

Testing (cmon', i'm sure some ppl still have CD/DVD writers & medias!)
and feedback welcome of course.

Landry

xfburn.tgz (2K) Download Attachment
libburnia.tgz (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replace sysutils/xorriso by libburn/libisofs/libisoburn & import xfburn

Landry Breuil-5
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:23:33PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:

> Hi,
>
> had a look at xfburn
> (https://git.xfce.org/apps/xfburn/tree/README?id=xfburn-0.5.4) which
> requires libisofs/libburn, for which openbsd support was added around
> 1.4.6 - and then i realized we had sysutils/xorriso which was recently
> imported.
>
> It turns out 'GNU xorriso' (ie
> https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso_eng.html) is a static
> compilation of libraries from libburnia project
> (http://libburnia-project.org/), ie libburn (providing cdrskin binary);
> libisofs, and libisoburn (on top of both previous libs, and also
> providing xorriso binary) -
> https://dev.lovelyhq.com/libburnia/web/wikis/Xorriso also explains more
> in detail this relationship.
>
> So i'd like to replace sysutils/xorriso by three ports for those
> separate libraries - that's the 3 new ports in the attached archive -
> and there's a separate port for xfburn which could be seen as a demo
> gui.
>
> I'm thiking of splitting libisoburn in 3 subpackages (it's not in the
> attached tarball but the splitting is trivial):
> -main (ie libisoburn), containing the libs/headers only
> -xorriso (ie xorriso, with @pkgpath/@conflict to upgrade from
> sysutils/xorriso), containing the xorriso binaries/manpages (ie the current
> content of sysutils/xorriso) and depending on the latter
> -gui (xorriso-gui?), containing only xorriso-tcltk
> (https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso-tcltk-screen.gif), as this one should
> RDEP on TCL/TK (it is a missing dependency of the current xorriso port)
> and it'd be a heavy dependency for xorriso itself.
>
> What do ppl think about this rationale ?

Ping ? anyone willing to okay the mechanical ports removal/layout change?

Landry

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replace sysutils/xorriso by libburn/libisofs/libisoburn & import xfburn

SASANO Takayoshi
Hello,

> Ping ? anyone willing to okay the mechanical ports removal/layout change?
>
> Landry

ok to split components and place suitable directory.
(Simply I want to use xorriso with grub2, so I had no idea about
libraries at that time)

Regards,
--
SASANO Takayoshi (JG1UAA) <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: replace sysutils/xorriso by libburn/libisofs/libisoburn & import xfburn

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by Landry Breuil-5
On 2017/12/16 11:11, Landry Breuil wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:23:33PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > had a look at xfburn
> > (https://git.xfce.org/apps/xfburn/tree/README?id=xfburn-0.5.4) which
> > requires libisofs/libburn, for which openbsd support was added around
> > 1.4.6 - and then i realized we had sysutils/xorriso which was recently
> > imported.
> >
> > It turns out 'GNU xorriso' (ie
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso_eng.html) is a static
> > compilation of libraries from libburnia project
> > (http://libburnia-project.org/), ie libburn (providing cdrskin binary);
> > libisofs, and libisoburn (on top of both previous libs, and also
> > providing xorriso binary) -
> > https://dev.lovelyhq.com/libburnia/web/wikis/Xorriso also explains more
> > in detail this relationship.
> >
> > So i'd like to replace sysutils/xorriso by three ports for those
> > separate libraries - that's the 3 new ports in the attached archive -
> > and there's a separate port for xfburn which could be seen as a demo
> > gui.
> >
> > I'm thiking of splitting libisoburn in 3 subpackages (it's not in the
> > attached tarball but the splitting is trivial):
> > -main (ie libisoburn), containing the libs/headers only
> > -xorriso (ie xorriso, with @pkgpath/@conflict to upgrade from
> > sysutils/xorriso), containing the xorriso binaries/manpages (ie the current
> > content of sysutils/xorriso) and depending on the latter
> > -gui (xorriso-gui?), containing only xorriso-tcltk
> > (https://www.gnu.org/software/xorriso/xorriso-tcltk-screen.gif), as this one should
> > RDEP on TCL/TK (it is a missing dependency of the current xorriso port)
> > and it'd be a heavy dependency for xorriso itself.
> >
> > What do ppl think about this rationale ?
>
> Ping ? anyone willing to okay the mechanical ports removal/layout change?

I haven't had cdrom drives for years, so can't test runtime, but (other
than the .orig file) all looks fine. OK with me.