Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:39:16 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Florent Peterschmitt <fpeterscom@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <20120626083916.GI41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--TKDEsImF70pdVIl+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:26:45AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: >=20 > Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>: >=20 > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or > >> some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has ma= ny > >> "problems": > >> > >> 1. Ports are not modular > > What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages =20 > > it is coming, > > but it takes time >=20 > I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin, > foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). I'm just talking about giving the ability to split packages :) after that we can imagine our own way. >=20 > >> 2. Option system is not really well documented > > What kind of documentation do you need?, please report what you are =20 > > expected so > > that we can improve it > > > >> 3. Some dependencies are totally useless > > Please report PR > > > >> 4. So slow... > > What is slow do you mean compiling is slow? > > > >> > >> Let me give some examples: > >> > >> 1. games/wesnoth should be splitted in games/wesnoth-bin and > >> games/wesnoth-datas. Why rebuild everything when just binaries needs ? > > > > This is coming, it takes lot of time, and some things have to be =20 > > done first, in > > the infrastructure that the user do not see much. >=20 > I do not see any necessity for infrastructure changes here - we did that > in the past for several ports (e.g. alephone, alienarena, ...). No be able to have sub packages and flavours (aka N packages from one port) there are changes needed >=20 > >> 2. Why do we have to put WITH_NEW_XORG in /etc/make.conf to get it ? W= hy > >> not put this var in a port configuration file which will be read by all > >> ports needing this var ? > > > > Because this is not that easy, do you have a technical way to =20 > > propose? I think > > noone is really happy with the WITH_NEW_XORG, but this is the "less wor= se" :) > > way we found, if you have a better way to propose, please step up =20 > > and propose. >=20 > /etc/make.conf (or whatever to be included in /etc/make.conf) can be =20 > seen as port > configuration file that is evaluated by the ports. And each port picks = =20 > those things, > it needs. >=20 +1 regards, Bapt --TKDEsImF70pdVIl+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/pdTQACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzlQACgh/Dmve5hdRn/MGMlbP4aKtTm avkAn0HltDSpPH7+d/1e0drBqyD67Imf =TbMX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TKDEsImF70pdVIl+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120626083916.GI41054>