Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:57:53 +0200 From: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <20131004065753.GV82824@droso.dk> In-Reply-To: <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20131003084814.GB99713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524D6059.2000700@FreeBSD.org> <524DD120.4000701@freebsd.org> <20131003203501.GA1371@medusa.sysfault.org> <CAGwOe2Ye2MLz3QpyMW3wyN9ew%2BiNnTETS1oOi_%2B8dPehUcWa0w@mail.gmail.com> <20131004061833.GA1367@medusa.sysfault.org> <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--d9ADC0YsG2v16Js0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Please no devel packages. > > > > > > > > Seconded. > > > > > > What's wrong with devel packages? > >=20 > > It complicates things for developers and custom software on > > FreeBSD. The typical situation that I see on most Linux platforms is a > > lot of confusion by people, why their custom software XYZ does not > > properly build - the most common answer: they forgot to install a > > tremendous amount of dev packages, containing headers, build tools and > > whatnot. > > On FreeBSD, you can rely on the fact that if you installed e.g. libGL, > > you can start building your own GL applications without the need to > > install several libGL-dev, libX11-dev, ... packages first. > > This is something, which I personally see as a big plus of the FreeBSD > > ports system and which makes FreeBSD attractive as a development platfo= rm. > >=20 >=20 > On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, that = also > makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they both > provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 version at > runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building locally, a= nd > that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Why ha= ving > .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI size, = etc. >=20 > Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. Shoul= d we be > nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is the q= uestion > to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. >=20 If we chose to go down that path, at least we should chose a different name as we've used the -devel suffix for many years for developmental versions. I must agree that it is one of the things high on my list of things that irritate me with several Linux distributions but I can see the point for for embedded systems as well. But can't we have both? Create three packages, a default full package and split packages of -bin, -lib, and even -doc. My first though twas to make the full package a meta-package that would install the split packages in the background, but that would probably be confusing for users at the end of the day, so rather just have it be a real package. Erwin --=20 Erwin Lansing http://droso.dk erwin@FreeBSD.org http:// www.FreeBSD.org --d9ADC0YsG2v16Js0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (FreeBSD) iQEVAwUBUk5m8VF75hSlwe7HAQqQbggAhtdgtvh+lb76jT3eR6fhSc2DURDFX2oz cH0jQE1T4b6d08e/j+Ndi14I6gHy1WlH6jHPKr+UEW9Yqm+00cWdQ1zirIMcjwR0 /+kkH12vpy+rYMsBQ4OnxuK0FsW/Lmaz1hwSz/6pLlVKHtKP7dKx4/Dn7Is8EXZZ cOM/wHmddM9X9ShY+qGuzD4cEN3sHW0LHpkNqceaWVwlyd9DUv0RKBTGi/jRBXaR 8bJqybVHH2gidxwFGr7I+RQyWrf/U0LkME6sM41BsqjjjtIAJSM9XptJRKZ99syW LDnBg6Hm4vJgwVHWP7H/HbG0ugiero4YuIAQ0mvRc2DJxBcj1n1EuQ== =xhAj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --d9ADC0YsG2v16Js0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131004065753.GV82824>