Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:57:36 +0800
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
To:        Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: openldap-client vs openldap-sasl-client
Message-ID:  <6cf7d51d-f128-9014-970d-0b719f8cbdf4@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <4c8d3ad3-156d-e5a4-0051-9b6e590530ce@freebsd.org>
References:  <c798f1e9-92f0-1d2a-32e4-46dad59f05d0@FreeBSD.org> <34b66662-a2d7-706d-3653-e0ffc9bf81b2@rlwinm.de> <4c8d3ad3-156d-e5a4-0051-9b6e590530ce@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/01/2017 6:44 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 5/01/2017 6:30 PM, Jan Bramkamp wrote:
>> On 04/01/2017 18:32, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you I understand correctly that it is impossible now to install 
>>> both samba44
>>> and libreoffice using the official FreeBSD package repository?
>>> Or samba44 and KDE?
>>>
>>> If yes, then that sucks...
>
> similar happened recently with the two jpeg libraries.
> They can't be installed at the same time but some packages wanted 
> one and some the other.
>
>>
>> Yes and yes it sucks. The "solution" is to build your own repo and 
>> set the right flags to always use the same LDAP client port. With 
>> binary packages and the speed of modern x86_64 systems I for one no 
>> longer see removing SASL support from OpenLDAP as useful enough to 
>> justify the complexity. Are there any reasons other than saved 
>> build time to disable this dependency (e.g. a bad security track 
>> record/process, different licenses)?
>> _______________________
no, I think the "solution" is to think of an architectural way around 
this.
One thought:
  maybe we can have a 'virtual dependency"  that more than one package 
can satisfy?
  the USES stuff seems to be heading in that direction.  Maybe someone 
who knows more about it can tell us more about it?

I'd also like to see packages have more htan one way to install, to 
give the same effect as the linux -devel and regular packages.
pkg install --runtime     vs  pkg install --devel
  (and I'd like to see a --minimal,  no docs, examples etc.)
Each would have their own depednencies as well, probably building up 
from minimal->runtime->devel








Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6cf7d51d-f128-9014-970d-0b719f8cbdf4>