It looks fine too me. I'm glad that i wasn't too far away from the Flavor code. :)

After some tests i wouldn't extend this patch further - its great enough. I would flavorize various PHP ports afterwards. :)

why only www/wordpress?
There are more wordpress ports:
russian/wordpress
and more here: https://portscout.freebsd.org/joneum@freebsd.org.html

Please node: wordpress 4.9.3 is out and i will update it (bugfix release)

In D14208#298316, @tz wrote:

It looks fine too me. I'm glad that i wasn't too far away from the Flavor code. :)

After some tests i wouldn't extend this patch further - its great enough. I would flavorize various PHP ports afterwards. :)

Would be nice if it was a good idea, but for many it is not.

In D14208#298437, @joneum wrote:

why only www/wordpress?
There are more wordpress ports:
russian/wordpress
and more here: https://portscout.freebsd.org/joneum@freebsd.org.html

Please node: wordpress 4.9.3 is out and i will update it (bugfix release)

Why only www/wordpress? Because it's the first PHP app that came to mind, and I wanted to toy with it.

In D14208#298635, @mat wrote:

In D14208#298316, @tz wrote:

It looks fine too me. I'm glad that i wasn't too far away from the Flavor code. :)

After some tests i wouldn't extend this patch further - its great enough. I would flavorize various PHP ports afterwards. :)

Would be nice if it was a good idea, but for many it is not.

I don't know who you mean? Currently there are only 3 persons (+ portmgr) in this review.

I won't stop you. But the patch exceeds my review-time and touches many different issues. If you don't want to break it down, please go ahead, but in this case i'm out. Maybe joneum can help with more time. And it would be great if this feature enters the portstree.

But one note: please add more comments to the framework-changes. It is already hard to understand what the framework does. And with the current patch it becomes harder.

In D14208#298688, @tz wrote:

In D14208#298635, @mat wrote:

In D14208#298316, @tz wrote:

It looks fine too me. I'm glad that i wasn't too far away from the Flavor code. :)

After some tests i wouldn't extend this patch further - its great enough. I would flavorize various PHP ports afterwards. :)

Would be nice if it was a good idea, but for many it is not.

I don't know who you mean? Currently there are only 3 persons (+ portmgr) in this review.

Sorry, my sentence was less than clear. The last "it" refered to "flavorizing php ports". There are many that cannot be done afterwards.

I won't stop you. But the patch exceeds my review-time and touches many different issues. If you don't want to break it down, please go ahead, but in this case i'm out. Maybe joneum can help with more time. And it would be great if this feature enters the portstree.

The only interesting bits are the Mk changes, the rest are just making things build.

But one note: please add more comments to the framework-changes. It is already hard to understand what the framework does. And with the current patch it becomes harder.

I usually add comments later, when the dust settles a bit, because there's no point in spending time explaining stuff that will be rewritten five times during the process of the review.

So whats the current status here? When will it land?

In D14208#302810, @tz wrote:

So whats the current status here?

It is ready, been ready for a while, waiting for review.

When will it land?

When I decide I am tired of waiting for a review, and after an exp-run dance :-)

Great - i will try to find some time within the next days for review :)

Note that the only interesting bits to review are the Mk/ changes, all the rest is mechanical changes to make sure everything still work.

The PKGNAMESUFFIX are removed in a few ports because they do not conflict any more.

About the PKGNAMESUFFIX removals, right now, we have:

$ for i in devel/pecl-weakref{,2}; do make -C $i pretty-flavors-package-names; done
no flavor: pecl-weakref-0.2.6_1
no flavor: pecl-weakref2-0.3.3

So the 2 is needed.

With flavors, we have:

$ for i in devel/pecl-weakref{,2}; do make -C $i pretty-flavors-package-names; done
php56: php56-pecl-weakref-0.2.6_1
php70: php70-pecl-weakref-0.3.3
php71: php71-pecl-weakref-0.3.3
php72: php72-pecl-weakref-0.3.3

So the 2 is no longer needed, package names are already different.

This was already committed and could now be abandoned?