Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:26 +0200 From: Florent Peterschmitt <fpeterscom@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <4FEAD6AE.7090603@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLFttdQ3RwhrB3Sk0UjbtT4EPW4wztPOak9KQLwR7GNyY8GZQ@mail.gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26.06.2012 17:21, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin<bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: >>> Matthew Seaman<m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>: >>> >>>> On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote: >>>>>>> 1. Ports are not modular >>>>>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it >>>>>> is coming, >>>>>> but it takes time >>>>> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin, >>>>> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). >>>> Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about >>>> here. Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing? >>> Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers to rip >>> upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additional tasks >>> to perform for what particular benefit (except saving some disk space)? >>> >>> If I want to do some development the Debian way, I would need to do the >>> following: >>> >>> - install foo-bin (if it ships with binaries) >>> - install foo-lib (libraries, etc.) >>> - install foo-dev (headers, etc.) >>> - install foo-doc (API docs) >>> >>> With the ports I am currently doing: >>> >>> - install foo > I agree. > >> yes but you do not allow to install 2 packages one depending on mysql51 and one >> depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just because of >> developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict. >> >> I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it make sense. >> >> In the case you give I would probably split the package that way: >> foo (everything needed in runtime: bin + libraries) >> foo-dev (everything needed for developper: headers, static libraries, pkg-config >> stuff, libtool stuff, API docs) >> foo-docs (all user documentation about the runtime) >> >> of course there will be no rule on how to split packages, just common sense. > Disagree. We shouldn't split for that. Have you seen how many Linux > users report when they can't compile one of application, just because > they didn't install the *-dev? A LOT (thousands and thousands)! When > it's A LOT then it means that it's flawed. If the upstream provide the > split tarballs then I do not have any problem with it. > > Also, it will slow down the ports tree pretty bad if we do that way to > all ports. > >> regards, >> Bapt > Just don't make -dev package, that's really something stupid and I agree with that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FEAD6AE.7090603>