Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:25:53 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Patrick Lamaiziere <patfbsd@davenulle.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: future of packages? Message-ID: <20121009222553.GH8713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20121010001723.0e75efb2@davenulle.org> References: <20121010001723.0e75efb2@davenulle.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--YrlhzR9YrZtruaFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:17:23AM +0200, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I have to say that I'm convinced that pkg and packages is the way > to go. It is nice to have a package manager (pkg is a wonderfull > tool), but without package, such tool is a bit useless... >=20 > So which packages? IMO packages should be consistent (by example if we > support ipv6, all packages should have "ipv6 on" option). But this is > also true for, by example ldap: should we provide ldap authentifcation > by default? (IMO yes since FreeBSD targets servers).=20 >=20 > A "generic" packages set also means that a lot of things (into > packages) will be useless (I'm sure some pleople will complain). But it > will be the cost to use packages. >=20 > IMO it will take a lot a time to have a consistent options set for our > packages. It could be a bit premature, but I will be to happy to ear > about how packages and packages options will be handle in the future. Lot's of things are possible: 1/ with pkgng 2.0 we expect to be able to get provides/requires features, which could help a lot having packages build with different options and no dependency problem (can be seen as kindof flavours) 2/ an other direction, would be to be able to split packages: aka one port = to provide multiple packages, most (not all) of the time the options in ports = are only there to add files/libs or not into a package if we can split packages= then we can drastically reduce the number of options 3/ sane package splitting, I know there is a lot of people that will not be happy with the next, but being able to split packages into runtime vs development part for example can help a lot, for example, allowing having packages depending on mysql41 runtime libraries and mysql42 runtime librari= es install at the same time with no conflicts, lots of different version of sa= me libraries conflicts just because they are pulling the same developpement fi= les, which end-users don't care about. regards, Bapt --YrlhzR9YrZtruaFS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlB0pHEACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyUbgCfYrR3hs27x4NiRqwxIyAiBYpN NSwAn24Cb9JniRWIbGTrYeMwki1vqpqo =jiCX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YrlhzR9YrZtruaFS--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121009222553.GH8713>