[MacPorts] #33259: cmake portgroup: out of source build option, possibly by default

[MacPorts]

#33259: cmake portgroup: out of source build option, possibly by default
---------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  ryandesign@…  |      Owner:  macports-tickets@…
      Type:  enhancement   |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal        |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports         |    Version:
Resolution:                |   Keywords:
      Port:                |
---------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment (by larryv@…):

 Replying to [comment:48 rjvbertin@…]:
 > Is there or has there ever been a cmake-0.0 portgroup? I'd feel more
 > comfortable moving the old default behaviour to a "previous version"

 What? This would be weird and confusing.

 > rather than obliging everyone to delve into their portfiles or
 > portgroup files to bump a version when their products just work with
 > the new OOS approach. It also means that maintainers who do nothing
 > will keep using non-OOS builds

 Yes, that’s what Michael and I want because we don’t know that all the
 portfiles will “just work”. So the question is whether this should be opt-
 in or opt-out.

 If we decided on opt-out, we already have a simple implementation: Change
 the default in `cmake-1.0` and be done with it. Ports that can’t deal with
 the default behavior would just add “`cmake.out_of_source no`”.

 > which kind of goes against the very reasons OOS builds were made the
 > default

 I don’t agree. The point of portgroups is to cut down on portfile
 boilerplate, not necessarily to reduce maintainer effort.

 Also: Given that this modification would change the default build
 behavior, I think it’d be a good thing to require portfiles to be updated
 for it. It’s confusing when a port’s behavior mysteriously changes because
 of portgroup action-at-a-distance, especially if it breaks. This happens
 all too often, and it can be difficult to debug.

 > Note that demoting the current default to a legacy portgroup also
 > means there is no or less reason to port other modifications to it...

 I think maintaining parallel portgroups is a minor problem. Forgetting to
 change one or the other would not be the end of the world; someone else
 could just clean up afterwards.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33259#comment:49>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X