From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 8 14:27:11 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A48FE84; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 14:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90B0629A1; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 14:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s58EQuUb037928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:26:56 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id s58EQunx037925; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:26:56 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:26:56 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Lev Serebryakov Subject: Re: Splitting devel/subversion into SEVERAL ports -- how fine-grained do we want to see it? In-Reply-To: <462076727.20140608163122@serebryakov.spb.ru> Message-ID: References: <1438330868.20140608001618@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20140608134142.4d4a0ae1@freedom.alkumuna.eu> <462076727.20140608163122@serebryakov.spb.ru> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 08 Jun 2014 08:26:56 -0600 (MDT) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Matthieu Volat X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 14:27:11 -0000 On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Matthieu. > You wrote 8 ???? 2014 ?., 15:41:42: > > MV> Holy... > > MV> Is this Debian now? How about 14 packages to have granularity over what > MV> sub-library needed, and 23 others for each svn* command? And don't forget headers. > > MV> An aspect of ports I liked was it followed/respected the upstream > MV> packaging mindset, instead of going for artificial repackaging like > MV> linux distros. This minigame of cutting other people works in tiny > MV> atomics bits so I have to figure what is missing at runtime is tiresome. > > MV> If this is a binary/options issue, I'd rather see an effort in > MV> providing a system able to allow using globally packages with local > MV> build when desired options differs, and the reverse (build everything > MV> except a list of stuff where binary is prefered). > With pkgng in play, I get more and more requests from people, who want to > use only binary packages. And when such vital (for many) features as > mod_dav_svn and (not so vital, but desirable) DE integration is non-default > options of single port, it could not be done. > > BTW, nobody objects against separated language bindings, especially Java > ones :) > > Really, I get requests to have "mod_dav_svn" package at least twice a month > for all time subversion port exists. But, yes, maybe separation to > libraries and binaries is too much, and I need only extract apache-related > stuff and DE-related stuff. This is less work and complication, and sounds like it will be enough to satisfy people. Later, if a split into more slave ports is needed, it can be done then.