Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 12:45:34 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: scratch65535@att.net Cc: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <20170627174534.GA29356@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <lsl4lctd0452v2r9442vpg68f88c1igdhi@4ax.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <2f23f3d0-dcb1-dc12-eb9f-c8966a10f5f7@toco-domains.de> <77c15a0a-fde0-b240-803e-b369ebf0b897@gjunka.com> <lsl4lctd0452v2r9442vpg68f88c1igdhi@4ax.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:24:31AM -0400, scratch65535@att.net wrote: > The number of ports to build a server-of-all-work is not large. Now the problem is getting people to agree on exactly what that subset is. If there is interest, I can provide the examples and code I use whenever I start up a new machine here at the house, e.g. powerpc64, sparc64, etc. And we'll see how close to agreement people can get. (Yes, I'm quite skeptical.) > Unnecessarily complex and a source of uncontrolled errors, yes, One person's "unnecessary" is another person's "necessary". > Specialist workstations such as sound/video editing? Maybe. You'll immediately go from a few hundred ports to a few thousand ports. No one has ever done the work on "most minimal set of dependencies" in the ports tree -- and that's because it's hard work. Add to that the fact that the technology has never supported partial checkouts and it complicates things. tl;dr: I do have long-time experience building subsets of the ports tree and in my experience it's harder than people think, once you get beyond a few dozen targets. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170627174534.GA29356>