From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Oct 3 14:29:30 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C789AF3FC3 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [185.24.122.233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CED9C97 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from crayon2.yoonka.com (crayon2.yoonka.com [10.70.7.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u93ETR3d039073 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:28 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Subject: Re: dependency explosions To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <2df71272-7b98-ad73-650a-3ec70beb71d5@freebsd.org> <19d248ae-8919-fdc9-84e8-ff90ae761e6f@gjunka.com> <20161003151148.4860ca1a@curlew.lan> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <6d1eb20d-4597-8176-3dbd-661648a6a03c@gjunka.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:27 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161003151148.4860ca1a@curlew.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:29:30 -0000 On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote: > On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +0000 > Grzegorz Junka wrote: > >> Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistaken >> FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system, with X running only >> occasionally > I'd disagree with that. I don't know whether or not the majority of > FreeBSD installations are servers or personal computers but the chances > are that the majority of server installations will have relatively few > packages installed whereas most PC's are likely to make use of far > more packages and are also likely to be using X. Building from ports > to get the required options would be a much bigger task for these > installations than it would be for the servers. > I have been wondering if it would be possible to have two distinct set of packages compiled automatically, one tailored for X and one for the console. It seems that requirements of both environment are quite opposite. The server-side requires small amount of packages without X because it wants to run the system headless, as long as possible and without interruptions and restarts. Whereas the X/PC environment always wants to have everything latest and newest. In the Linux world they would just create a new distribution, even in the BSD world there is PC-BSD/TrueOS. But we have ports and can re-use the same base for two distinctive set of packages. I don't believe we can create pre-compiled packages for FreeBSD in such a way, that both camps are happy (which this thread is one of many signs of). Grzegorz