Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:24:37 +0200 From: "Vlad K." <vlad-fbsd@acheronmedia.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: harder and harder to avoid pkg Message-ID: <cc6f4aa8f2cf75bb128233f0e31e0ff7@acheronmedia.com> In-Reply-To: <0feda216-98b9-fa26-c34f-237b73debb38@freebsd.org> References: <638fe078-80db-2492-90be-f1280eb8d445@freebsd.org> <ff4a1e93a21ce0f599ed5ca7fe0a9a5d@acheronmedia.com> <0feda216-98b9-fa26-c34f-237b73debb38@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-10-12 10:27, Julian Elischer wrote:
> what I really need is a RUNTIME option that produces a package with
> only those files needed to satisfy external run-time depdencies, or
> the actual demands of the user itself. However since those files are
Right. But then the question is how do you define what is minimum
required code to satisfy external run time deps? Can the framework
assume it by path, or should the maintainers define it through options?
IMHO if the latter, then my suggestion is not to define any roles
("runtime") but define groups of files that can then be included in
whatever role. Eg, all include/... files be switched with HEADERS
option. Many ports already do DOCS, MANPAGES, EXAMPLES. So that's a set
criteria one can base -runtime variant upon:
OPTIONS_UNSET= HEADERS DOCS MANPAGES EXAMPLES
--
Vlad K.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cc6f4aa8f2cf75bb128233f0e31e0ff7>