Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:00:40 -0700 From: Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: Lexi Winter <lexi@le-fay.org> Cc: pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: scope of FreeBSD-utilities Message-ID: <e9e334c8616186b3f44a0ea983d2c361@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <Zh7FFmBtUOXxQJKB@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org> References: <Zh7FFmBtUOXxQJKB@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2024-04-16 11:36, Lexi Winter wrote: > hello, > > this week i've been submitting a few patches to move things out of > FreeBSD-utilities. this is the 'catch all' package that everything gets > added to if it doesn't belong to another package, so as a result it > contains a lot of random crap that clearly shouldn't be there, simply > because no one has gotten around to moving it to the right package yet. > > i've been trying to address this, but i wanted to clarify what exactly > should be in its own package, and what should in FreeBSD-utilities, and > if perhaps we need some additional packages. > > i briefly discussed this with manu on IRC who said that the basic idea > is that one package should constitute a definable 'subsystem' rather > than a single binary, which i agree with, but let me mention a few > examples i'm unsure about: > > - mlxcontrol, mprutil, mpsutil, mptutil - these are utilities for > managing various SCSI/SAS/RAID controllers. should each of these be > in their own package (following the example of e.g. cxgbe-tools) or > should there be a single package for 'HBA controller utilities'? i am > leaning towards the former, but this means we'll end up with a few > packages containing only a single binary + manpage. agreed, former (each to their own package) > > - awk, grep, bc, dc, cal, etc. - i am inlined to leave these in > FreeBSD-utilities on the basis that these are actually 'utilities' and > having a single package that provides all of them is quite useful - or > at least will be once everything else has been moved out of > -utilities so the package is a bit smaller. Leave in. > > - mt, rmt - these are niche utilities; if you have a tape drive they're > essential, but the vast majority of users don't have a tape drive. so > should these be in their own package? > own package (inclusive) > there are more examples like this but hopefully these illustrate the > basic issues. > > i'm happy to continue submitting PRs using my best judgement for this, > but to avoid wasting anyone's time (including mine!) i thought it might > be useful to have a discussion about the preferred way forward here. In closing; Not having looked at the Makefile, Is this option-based? IOW can the user simply tick off any/all of the individual items included in the port? Thanks. --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e9e334c8616186b3f44a0ea983d2c361>