Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:57:32 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Marcus von Appen <mva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <4FEA142C.5040408@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120626184649.GB2540@medusa.sysfault.org> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE97008.2060501@netfence.it> <4FE97AE1.9080109@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE98D5F.1070608@gmail.com> <20120626184649.GB2540@medusa.sysfault.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigEC65A07BAB67596AD78D1904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 26/06/2012 19:46, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> I can't see that from the rough outline given earlier. What I understoo=
d
> is that some stagedir is used to build mono, then packages (-lib, -doc,=
> -whatever) are created and installed.
> If you do not use downloaded packages, but install them yourself, you'd=
> need to rebuild the complete mono port on an update.
>=20
> Happy to be corrected here
I don't know anything about the particulars of the mono port, but if it
makes sense to divide it into several slave ports, then that will still
be possible. Use of sub-ports is not going to be mandatory. Well,
possibly with the exception of docs and/or examples, but that shouldn't
be a huge burden for anyone.
Remember what the big win is here: a binary package system that is fit
for purpose and that preserves as much of the functionality and
flexibility of the ports as possible. Yes, compiling from source
yourself is the gold standard, but we think it would be pretty great if
there was a binary package management system that was good enough that
you don't actually /have/ to do that if you don't want to.
Yes, it's complicated, but the ports is already hideously complicated,
and I don't think this is that much worse: just moving the complication
around a bit.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enigEC65A07BAB67596AD78D1904
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEUEARECAAYFAk/qFDMACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyTTACfcorKJf4VrE5cpCG+LZJuPBA7
qpEAl2u2MOhHk9qya/vl/6jT/eTZ5mE=
=PEE9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigEC65A07BAB67596AD78D1904--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FEA142C.5040408>