Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 08:00:43 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <524E679B.9010103@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20131003084814.GB99713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524D6059.2000700@FreeBSD.org> <524DD120.4000701@freebsd.org> <20131003203501.GA1371@medusa.sysfault.org> <CAGwOe2Ye2MLz3QpyMW3wyN9ew%2BiNnTETS1oOi_%2B8dPehUcWa0w@mail.gmail.com> <20131004061833.GA1367@medusa.sysfault.org> <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --OBScqi3JDheiAFdbmFmdM5lgutu9aCXj5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/10/2013 07:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, tha= t also > makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they b= oth > provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 version= at > runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building locally,= and > that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Why = having > .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI size= , etc. >=20 > Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. Sho= uld we be > nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is the= question > to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. Can't we have the best of both worlds? We're already planning on creating sub-packages for eg. docs and examples. The default will be to install docs etc. sub-packages automatically unless the user opts out in some way. I imagine there will be a global switch somewhere -- in pkg.conf or similar[*]. Couldn't we work devel packages in the same way? Install by default alongside the main package unless explicitly requested not to. I think having the capability to selectively install parts of packages like this is important and useful functionality and something that will be indispensible for eg. embedded platforms. But not an option that the vast majority of ordinary users will need to exercise. Cheers, Matthew [*] The precise mechanism for choosing which sub-package bits to install has not yet been written. If anyone has any bright ideas about how this should all work, then I'd be interested to hear them. --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk --OBScqi3JDheiAFdbmFmdM5lgutu9aCXj5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iKYEARECAGYFAlJOZ6VfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEI1NTUyQTk2Mjc0RUQyNDg1NzM0MEVCNEYw QzhFNEU3NjBBRTkwOEMACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxQWgCfcbCyT1YraPz/byogkIoOBzPz Jt4AoIqfKU0lKg0aE0zs7Q0HbIS22eZK =uuJ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OBScqi3JDheiAFdbmFmdM5lgutu9aCXj5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?524E679B.9010103>