Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:17:42 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Ashish SHUKLA <wahjava@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: split xcbgen from xcb-proto Message-ID: <4A0430F6.4080202@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <86tz3v6d44.fsf@chateau.d.lf> References: <4A01C995.1080808@icyb.net.ua> <86hbzwvzsd.fsf@chateau.d.lf> <4A03F50B.6050908@icyb.net.ua> <86tz3v6d44.fsf@chateau.d.lf>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 08/05/2009 14:35 Ashish SHUKLA said the following: > Well no ideas about netbsd's pkgsrc system, but debian is a package > based system. Being a package based system, you've to create a separate > package for each combination of options you're going to support. IMHO, > FreeBSD is not a package based system primarily. Well, let's not make decisions for other people. It's great to have a combined ports/packages system and it's nice to always treat it as such. > It is ports based and > in ports based system you've the freedom to specify the OPTIONS with > which you want port to be installed and a package to be built for it. Freedom always comes with burden of choice. I don't see why in this case there should be any choice or why that choice should be on a user. Select PYTHON and a user might have a bloat that he actually doesn't; don't select PYTHON, then later install some port that depends on xcbgen and a user has to deal with a cryptic failure when the new port sees that xcb-proto is installed, but doesn't see xcbgen. Having two ports, one for xcb-proto C core and the other for xcbgen doesn't but any burden on a user and automatically correctly handles dependencies. But this approach is more laborious, of course. > And BtW, WITH_PYTHON is not defined by default which means the default > port will not be built with python support, unless you specifically > requests for it. If this seems okay to you, I can add OPTIONS. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A0430F6.4080202>