From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 26 09:31:54 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C250106566C for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:31:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from cp-out9.libero.it (cp-out9.libero.it [212.52.84.109]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB458FC0C for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:31:53 +0000 (UTC) X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0203.4FE98183.009C,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-libjamoibt: 1555 Received: from soth.ventu (151.41.252.156) by cp-out9.libero.it (8.5.133) id 4FD1B52302E5C220 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:31:47 +0200 Received: from alamar.ventu (alamar.ventu [10.1.2.18]) by soth.ventu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5Q9Ve9n012589 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:31:41 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Message-ID: <4FE9817C.7020905@netfence.it> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:31:40 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120622 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE97008.2060501@netfence.it> <4FE97AE1.9080109@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4FE97AE1.9080109@infracaninophile.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 on 10.1.2.13 Subject: Re: Port system "problems" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:31:54 -0000 On 06/26/12 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Yes, it will multiply the number of ports. By three is about right, > given that most ports will only have port-docs and port-examples > sub-ports. However, first of all, you are assuming that the effort > required to install each of those sub-ports is the same as it is to > install a single port now. That is simply not the case. Not exactly. I still didn't get the details, so I might speak nonsense, however... The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever) to update the package database 3 times as much as before. I remember the big X.org split up: going from a few ports to tens of them slowed down an installation/upgrade process by an order of magnitude (or even more). > A typical example would involve client-server apps -- so mysqlNN-server > becomes a sub-port of mysqlNN-client. You get to check a box saying > 'install the server as well as the client' when you go to install > mysqlNN. Similarly all those php5-XYZ modules become sub-ports of > lang/php5. We had this in the past: a php-extension port with options to include each extension or leave it out. Each time we needed to add a missing extension, we needed to reconfigure this port and rebuild all. Now we have each extension in its own port and I think it's much better. I just hope we don't get back to that. What I anticipate will often happen is installing some port, finding out that some part is missing, install the missing part, repeat that several times. I just hope I'm wrong (and again, it is at all possible that I am wrong here). bye & Thanks av.