Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:50:48 +0200 From: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <20120626185048.GC2540@medusa.sysfault.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLFttdQ3RwhrB3Sk0UjbtT4EPW4wztPOak9KQLwR7GNyY8GZQ@mail.gmail.com> 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> <CADLFttdQ3RwhrB3Sk0UjbtT4EPW4wztPOak9KQLwR7GNyY8GZQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--32u276st3Jlj2kUU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wr= ote: > > 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= it > >> >>> is coming, > >> >>> but it takes time > >> > > >> >> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (fo= o-bin, > >> >> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). > >> > > >> > Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about > >> > here. =C2=A0Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing? > >> > >> Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers to = rip > >> upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additiona= l 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= and one > > depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just becaus= e of > > developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict. > > > > I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it mak= e 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, p= kg-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 s= ense. > > 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. Seconded. For newcomers, such a package system is as complex as an Ubuntu or Debian (under the hood), if they "just want to do X". Archlinux does provide complete packages, which makes perfect sense for me. I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need sub-packages. Cheers Marcus --32u276st3Jlj2kUU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/qBIgACgkQi68/ErJnpkfmWACeNpk8YJ7F8E0k/YhmDXTAcUs0 ZKcAoJz547MLI1TLwxCoG8EIkwpHvlV/ =YrdJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --32u276st3Jlj2kUU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120626185048.GC2540>