Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:54:06 +0200 From: Matthias Petermann <matthias@d2ux.net> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: python <python@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multiple Python eggs within one port Message-ID: <20130516085406.Horde.0dWJ4GYVZLWZydTBodhu8g5@d2ux.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-VQ4PB3OjvHEPqAo2Us2HfDGLQ-odtoJ2h4uhYduNyUw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130515155738.Horde.zDbx37jZPYOoPydihrwCcA1@d2ux.org> <CADLo83-VQ4PB3OjvHEPqAo2Us2HfDGLQ-odtoJ2h4uhYduNyUw@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Hi Chis, Zitat von Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>: > Usually a master/slave configuration is more appropriate. Are you familiar > with those? at least I guess have seen such configurations e.g. for the gnome desktop(?). So do you mean, there is one master port which causes the ~50 ports to build in sequence? This would make sense as an addition to the current approach. My concern was about the number of single ports. Currently, Tryton provides ~50 modules/eggs, for each a single port. Currently we are planning to support 2...3 tryton versions in parallel within the ports. This would even grow this number to ~150. I worked with a committer on this and he mentioned, that portsmgr might be not too happy about such a large number just for a relatively small application. That's why I considered to bundle the eggs into one port. But response from portsmgr is still open, maybe they don't see an issue with this. Best regards, Matthiashome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130516085406.Horde.0dWJ4GYVZLWZydTBodhu8g5>