Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:39:57 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: dependency explosions Message-ID: <57F5651D.8060406@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <88debba1-df87-7ab6-447b-4a63b5e9c44b@freebsd.org> References: <2df71272-7b98-ad73-650a-3ec70beb71d5@freebsd.org> <d14d1aaf-5bdb-2e09-2892-2e32c4db0810@FreeBSD.org> <3b3f3e28-d759-d654-24c0-97fa5683837d@freebsd.org> <afcd83ea-29c1-44cc-3b93-f7064cdaa8e7@FreeBSD.org> <88debba1-df87-7ab6-447b-4a63b5e9c44b@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote on 10/05/2016 22:04: > On 4/10/2016 11:38 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >> Le 05/10/2016 à 05:18, Julian Elischer a écrit : >>> On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >>>> Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : >>>>> There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages. >>>> Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running >>>> make config. >>>> >>>>> Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in >>>>> as a dependency, as >>>>> there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells >>>>> and whistles. >>>> The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will >>>> fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box. >>>> >>> I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to >>> request option, >>> (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports) >>> e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything. >>> Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them, >>> but because they are forced to do so by dependencies. >>> Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple >>> way would be of great use to many many people >> Feel free to open PR/provide patches for ports which you think need to >> provide more options. > I think it would be a framework change. > not so much a per-port change. > By default, when the variable is set you take the list of options for > the package, and set them all to 'unset'. > > The only packages that would need work would be those for which that is > not a valid configuration, in which case you would supply some precanned > list of options to set to unset (or similar) e.g. MIN_SETTINGS="bla foo > bar" > > the point is that if I'm including a port becuase it's just a prereq. > then I probably want almost no options set.. The port itself can > probably know what options are likely to be needed by things that need > it adn can possibly supply a sensible setting but if it doesn't it might > be possible to just do it automatically. It's ridiculous that a single > small port can pull in python, perl and TCL (I forget which it was) > along with some 40 or so other packages. There is one more problem - port A needs port B as dependency, port B can be compiled with 4 options [W,X,Y,Z], port A needs port B with option X which pull port C as dependency. So this needs to be set somewhere or else default minimal options would break some ports. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57F5651D.8060406>