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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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, Matthias
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130516085406.Horde.0dWJ4GYVZLWZydTBodhu8g5>