From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 27 10:08:52 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B56B1065673; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:08:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1702F8FC21; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RA8phd035324; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:08:51 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from bapt@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q5RA8pCs035323; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:08:51 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: bapt set sender to bapt@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:08:49 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Marcus von Appen Message-ID: <20120627100848.GP41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> 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> <20120626185048.GC2540@medusa.sysfault.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XFI+TFG+M3u0jUjZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120626185048.GC2540@medusa.sysfault.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org 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 10:08:52 -0000 --XFI+TFG+M3u0jUjZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: > On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Jeremy Messenger wrote: >=20 > > 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 subpackag= es 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 abo= ut > > >> > here. =A0Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing? > > >> > > >> Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers t= o rip > > >> upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additio= nal tasks > > >> to perform for what particular benefit (except saving some disk spac= e)? > > >> > > >> 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 mysql= 51 and one > > > depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just beca= use of > > > developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict. > > > > > > I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it m= ake 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. >=20 > Seconded. For newcomers, such a package system is as complex as an > Ubuntu or Debian (under the hood), if they "just want to do X". >=20 > Archlinux does provide complete packages, which makes perfect sense for > me. I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need > sub-packages. >=20 Wrong archlinux provides subpackages, just no splitted the debian way. I al= so don't want splitting that way. anyway. Bap --XFI+TFG+M3u0jUjZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/q27AACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyiXACfZN5nNmMnmcxuTgx376ho6ijv k/IAn1T1VPYXh9J4YAfAx+0d/10I5sAj =bSiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XFI+TFG+M3u0jUjZ--