Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:43:11 +0200 From: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <20120626194311.GG2540@medusa.sysfault.org> In-Reply-To: <op.wgixxb1m34t2sn@tech304> 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> <20120626185048.GC2540@medusa.sysfault.org> <op.wgixxb1m34t2sn@tech304>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--JkW1gnuWHDypiMFO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Mark Felder wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:50:48 -0500, Marcus von Appen <mva@freebsd.org> > wrote: > > > I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need > > sub-packages. > > I want up to date packages for all my servers. My servers all have > different requirements -- I want Apache with LDAP here, and definitely > Apache without LDAP there. Designing a package-building and deployment > system for a non-homogenous server farm is an exercise in futility. Having > proper sub-packages fixes this issue in a cleanly supportable fashion. That sound good to me and something I'd vote for, since it does not split ports on a technical, but functional level into packages. Cheers Marcus --JkW1gnuWHDypiMFO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/qEM8ACgkQi68/ErJnpkeHXwCgvRH5XUJk/nMk1m4md/Ma8WVl TwYAoMDSPuP+0hOQ5LZkJPEJRhe5aX/r =Daoa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JkW1gnuWHDypiMFO--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120626194311.GG2540>