Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:59:26 -0700 From: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: vermaden <vermaden@interia.pl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I Can Has Packages? Message-ID: <20120820005926.GA13613@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <20120819232754.641a7eb2.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <mstfdvylnhedwhomycce@vqhb> <20120819213854.50408ec7.freebsd@edvax.de> <lvdsbvuwmpbmllonsvhr@dwkb> <20120819232754.641a7eb2.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:27:54PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:27:54 +0200 > From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> > Subject: Re: I Can Has Packages? > To: vermaden <vermaden@interia.pl> > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) > > On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:54:52 +0200, vermaden wrote: > > "Polytropon" <freebsd@edvax.de>: > > > On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:33:49 +0200, vermaden wrote: > > > > HI, > > > > > > > > OpenBSD seems to have packages for everything, even > > > > for LAME (audio/lame), why FreeBSD can not provide > > > > package for LAME the same way as OpenBSD does? > > > > > > j00 CAN haz pakagez. =^_^= > > > > > > Packages for _everything_ is impossible because of the many > > > options that may or MAY NOT fit your needs, so things have > > > to be set at compile time. Just imagine how many different > > > packages you would have to host for OpenOffice! > > > > > > In the past, "pkg_add -r de-openoffice" would have given > > > you a full-featured german version of OpenOffice, even > > > including a dictionary. Today, it's not that easy anymore. > > > > The OpenBSD team serves these 'complicated' packages > > by using *flavours* and *subpackages*, packages or their > > parts compiled with different options, its described in the > > OpenBSD FAQ here: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html > > > > | 15.2.3 - Finding packages > > | > > | (...) > > | > > | You will notice that certain packages are available in a > > | few different varieties, formally called flavors. Others > > | are pieces of the same application which may be > > | installed separately. They are called subpackages. > > | This will be detailed further in Using flavors and > > | subpackages but flavor basically means they are > > | configured with different sets of options. Currently, > > | many packages have flavors, for example: database > > | support, support for systems without X, or network > > | additions like SSL and IPv6. Every flavor of a package > > | will have a different suffix in its package name. For > > | detailed information about package names, please > > | refer to packages-specs(7). > > Interesting. That should work for packages with not so > many options. Opera has, if I remember correctly, 4 options, > resulting in tons of different dependencies; mplayer has > more options than you can fit on one screen (while we > assume the screen has 24 or 25 lines). It's an easy task > to calculate for a package with n options, each can be > set or not set, how many packages would have to be built > and served. :-) > > I just assume providing packages for every imaginable > combination requires lots of resources. As an example > take OpenOffice: Every language variant, then integration > with KDE, Gnome, or none of them, and printing support > (I think). That would be many hours of compiling, and > lots of storage space needed (note: current _and_ older > packages are needed, plus supported architectures). > > > > > > There are also ports that draw a massive slew of dependencies. > > > Some of them are of minor importance, like documentation that > > > urges you to install LaTeX. If that's the default the package > > > has been created from, installing it will bring teTeX to your > > > system too, even if _you_ don't need it. > > > > > > Also consider programs like mplayer that can have a lot of > > > codecs. Because it's illegal in the U.S. to listen to MP3, > > > those may not be included. :-) > > > > > > Okay, you get the idea: There may apply "shipping restrictions". > > > If I remember correctly, there has been such an issue for lame > > > in the past, but I thought that it would have been resolved. > > > When trying "make package", it was not possible, and there > > > also was not package for use with pkg_add. You _had_ to compile > > > it yourself because the terms of use told so. > > > > > > The ports collections has a specific field in Makefile that > > > gives you information about such issues: > > > > > > RESTRICTED= patent issues, see http://www.mp3licensing.com/ > > > > > > So if OpenBSD serves a lame package (I mean a package containing > > > lame), you should ask them in how far they have an agreement that > > > allows them to do so, in comparison to what patent issues prohibit > > > doing the same on FreeBSD. > > > > The OpenBSD port from here: http://openports.se/audio/lame > > > > Has its description of LAME as a *educational* tool, maybe that is > > the reason why they provide package for LAME: > > > > | LAME is an educational tool to be used for learning about MP3 > > | encoding. The goal of the LAME project is to improve the psycho > > | acoustics, quality and speed of MP3 encoding. > > > > My buddy has sent email to OpenBSD LAME port maintainer with > > question why they can distribute that without concerns, I will let > > You know if he gets the answer. > > That's really a good reason to avoid the restriction. I think > some specific kind of agreement has to be made to have this > declaration take effect and allow packaging the software. > > There are other ports that don't have equivalents on FreeBSD. > A good example is Java. While I think it's possible to > package the software (the "make package" command), the > current vendor or Java (no idea who is it today) forces > you do manually download the sources and put them into > /usr/ports/distfiles, requiring you to interactively > agree with their terms of use. > > > > Now keep working harder and carry a towel. =^_^= > > > > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... All of the above argumentation is why I have decided to goto "the dark side." im tired of ubuntu 12.04 chewing up >> 1.30 load while doing [abs] nothing, so before the guy I am hiring to come over and install a new KVM, I WIll likely switch to the free clone of redhat. but at least linux is just about push-button to upgrade. I spent nearly three months last spring to get my 7.3 up to date. --there were ==still== about four ports that would not build! So after 17 years, it's best wishes and im moving on. years ago we [FBSD] had a sponsor of some kind. I forget who, but they went belly-up or just quit on us. [???] I never was that much of a capitalist--and esp'ly not after three years of "consulting" until I found a REAL job. Nevertheless, it seems to me that having a backer would save us. I guess it boils downto this: either spent some N hours of work weekly in keeping this current -- (plus K hours between versions). or find a sponsor. or buy a mac. gary -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120820005926.GA13613>