Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:30:29 +0200
From:      =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9_Ladan?= <r.c.ladan@gmail.com>
To:        Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "ports@freebsd.org Ports" <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: bundled libraries in ports, any policy?
Message-ID:  <CADL2u4jRnJh2SBE%2B%2BPTGNtKHqhDXXBHLsOZXfoFqq=7OneRz_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53E0CD43.7010302@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <CADL2u4iMi736QuO-t-1ssrh0Y6MqOg2Ky_OO8vJueHbB=C8hBQ@mail.gmail.com> <53E0CD43.7010302@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2014-08-05 14:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org>:

> Ren=C3=A9 Ladan ha scritto:
> > Although the above example is specific to Chromium, do we want a policy
> for
> > bundled libraries in general? For example, Fedora an Gentoo have a poli=
cy
> > that favors the use system libraries (what we call LIB_DEPENDS)
>
> Yes, we prefer always system/port libraries, if there aren't strong
> reasons to do otherwise (e.g. a highly customized bundled version)
>
> My preference too, should something be written in the Porters Handbook
about this?


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
[2] http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Why_not_bundle_dependencies

Rene



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADL2u4jRnJh2SBE%2B%2BPTGNtKHqhDXXBHLsOZXfoFqq=7OneRz_g>