Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:21:06 -0500 From: Jeremy Messenger <mezz.freebsd@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: Marcus von Appen <mva@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <CADLFttdQ3RwhrB3Sk0UjbtT4EPW4wztPOak9KQLwR7GNyY8GZQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120626084433.GJ41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20120626103400.Horde.8frYBVNNcXdP6XP4ZP-0deA@webmail.df.eu> <20120626084433.GJ41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrot= e: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: >> Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>: >> >> > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote: >> >>>> 1. Ports are not modular >> > >> >>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages i= t >> >>> is coming, >> >>> but it takes time >> > >> >> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-= bin, >> >> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). >> > >> > Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about >> > here. =A0Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing? >> >> Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers to ri= p >> upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additional = tasks >> to perform for what particular benefit (except saving some disk space)? >> >> If I want to do some development the Debian way, I would need to do the >> following: >> >> - install foo-bin (if it ships with binaries) >> - install foo-lib (libraries, etc.) >> - install foo-dev (headers, etc.) >> - install foo-doc (API docs) >> >> With the ports I am currently doing: >> >> - install foo I agree. > yes but you do not allow to install 2 packages one depending on mysql51 a= nd one > depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just because = of > developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict. > > I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it make = sense. > > In the case you give I would probably split the package that way: > foo (everything needed in runtime: bin + libraries) > foo-dev (everything needed for developper: headers, static libraries, pkg= -config > stuff, libtool stuff, API docs) > foo-docs (all user documentation about the runtime) > > of course there will be no rule on how to split packages, just common sen= se. Disagree. We shouldn't split for that. Have you seen how many Linux users report when they can't compile one of application, just because they didn't install the *-dev? A LOT (thousands and thousands)! When it's A LOT then it means that it's flawed. If the upstream provide the split tarballs then I do not have any problem with it. Also, it will slow down the ports tree pretty bad if we do that way to all ports. > regards, > Bapt --=20 mezz.freebsd@gmail.com - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLFttdQ3RwhrB3Sk0UjbtT4EPW4wztPOak9KQLwR7GNyY8GZQ>