From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Wed Jun  8 15:10:52 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
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 03E1EB6F260;
 Wed,  8 Jun 2016 15:10:52 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de)
Received: from toco-domains.de (mail.toco-domains.de
 [IPv6:2a01:4f8:150:50a5::6])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36F8173F;
 Wed,  8 Jun 2016 15:10:51 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (mail.toco-domains.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:150:50a5::6])
 by toco-domains.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D00D71AAF017;
 Wed,  8 Jun 2016 17:10:49 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: gem, pip et al vs. pkg
To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>, "Mikhail T." <mi+oro@aldan.algebra.com>
References: <a3bc5362-660f-80d5-c64d-f439052b259f@aldan.algebra.com>
 <20160608005320.GQ41922@home.opsec.eu>
Cc: pkg@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists@toco-domains.de>
Message-ID: <822149db-ba15-fa14-d5b8-530ef287bd63@toco-domains.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:10:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160608005320.GQ41922@home.opsec.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:10:52 -0000


On 08.06.2016 02:53, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> The ports tree has thousands of entries, which are simply thin wrappers
>> around Ruby's gem or Perl's and/or Python's pip.
>
> Thanks again for asking the right questions. Please add go to that
> list 8-}
>
>> Why do we need them? Obviously, it is primarily
>> for other ports to be able to depend on them. But why can't we satisfy
>> this need without creating a port for each such little package?
>
> Because right now the mechanism we use is the only one we have.
>
>> If a port declares:
>>
>>     RUN_DEPENDS= /foo/:gem//bar/[:/version/]
>>
>> why can't the /bar/-gem (with the latest or specified version) be
>> automatically installed -- and/or registered as a dependency -- without
>> there being a dedicated port for it?
>
> We would need to mirror the language-specific dependency tracking
> in the ports system. While doable, it's definitly non-trivial.

Also it is not always language specific. Some rubygems for example 
requires other non-ruby software to be installed. This is handled by the 
ports very good - but if there is no such requirement a port is 
overhead. Also gems allow/need sometime specific versions - which is 
hard to track and keep right in the ports tree.

Greetings,
Torsten