Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:57:11 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pkg enhancing request Message-ID: <5133C737.5090508@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPJF9wmcCySfNA1YnQUBCwNLtV0Akh8BdTaL0cVdq8AVQrSy1A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPJF9wnjMgDP8X4JYE=zrsu%2BOY%2BsK3maqVSW9ks4tr32-PPtPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPJF9wmcCySfNA1YnQUBCwNLtV0Akh8BdTaL0cVdq8AVQrSy1A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2FHKGVTAJXQLFSSXHNMCX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 03/03/2013 21:05, Alexander Yerenkow wrote: > 2013/2/27 Alexander Yerenkow <yerenkow@gmail.com> >=20 >> I'd like to discuss adding to pkg meta info not only options which was= >> selected, but also default values >> This would be useful in long shot - when pkg will find few repos conta= ins >> same package, but different options, it could show difference not only= >> between variants, but also between default >> >> Also, this could lead into new setting, or switch, like "install packa= ge >> with default options", no matter which repo contains it. >> >> One more point, currently we have almost all meta-info about built >> package, but not much info about port itself data, default options is >> amongst them. >> >> >> > Any thoughts yet? :) Hi, Alexander, I think that recording the default options as well as the actual options used to build a package is an idea with merit. I'm not entirely convinced though: one thing we need to worry about is the size of the repository catalogue, so anything that gets added to the package meta-data has to be well justified. At the moment we're looking at more general provides/requires mechanisms for expressing dependencies between ports. Being able to require a package with particular options set or unset is certainly part of that. But does knowing if the options settings are the defaults or not really add anything? I think I can modify the DB schema in a way to encode that data which won't immediately double the size required for storing options related data. So I'll put that on my ToDo list -- might not happen very soon, but I'll get round to it in the end. This will require some changes to the ports and the way packages are created there, which I can tell you from experience does take quite some time to get into the tree. It's also something that's can't go into the current release branch of pkgng -- will have to wait for pkgng-1.1 at lea= st. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey ------enig2FHKGVTAJXQLFSSXHNMCX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEzxz8ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIw5xACfejrJdrqvW7SeR37EHgeNUNdd E9MAoIFLGbpdxu7NwGjlIIKxVLwP9hos =/wAf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2FHKGVTAJXQLFSSXHNMCX--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5133C737.5090508>