From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 27 09:53:18 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB64106564A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:53:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fpeterscom@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com (mail-ee0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F708FC15 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eeke49 with SMTP id e49so305985eek.13 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 02:53:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HHcjFaSHQLnro0Y1JxVg1SI1c7Rw+arnX8tnHtjY34g=; b=G4YVEdLgWa2olKl30DpZIwamaLeY4thXE/4Wc2ZlioxD9iBcySG/Wgn8aFE+M0bfas obNZuUvb/o31tMufZm0kMqMc/4/HWB2AlQ2uo2AV0+q9gclXji2Qc16GxcPPkC/vKba7 DqZhPYeRbbW/n+Zd02SvZrd1Olymjrto3TmpfncF40e8yjA0latwqiKH7IGy12bgHITt p0kV8Sczx0CilRNEPivb9xmDoRTj4gMV/CM/gq7v5cLmsA2Dprd8xK6hJ2j3xLAXeN2q g0/y05ysRG/SNcCcZEDJsAFQ/6wjXYkimDLELnXI+IOoJmwyldUONVFLQ/TCvojUzeqH HyPg== Received: by 10.14.100.16 with SMTP id y16mr107290eef.87.1340790451703; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 02:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.34] (74.143.5.93.rev.sfr.net. [93.5.143.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q53sm157336058eef.8.2012.06.27.02.47.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 02:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FEAD6AE.7090603@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:26 +0200 From: Florent Peterschmitt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.5) Gecko/20120625 Thunderbird/10.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Port system "problems" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:53:19 -0000 On 26.06.2012 17:21, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: >>> Matthew Seaman: >>> >>>> 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.