From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 4 07:05:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD046E6 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:05:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42FC429C6 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:05:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q59so3347082wes.11 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:05:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=HUAHF9iPLKFzFysve1bCSfMK9CzkO7waOTrUBqjNi/I=; b=IFfg9c9u2gYhaajgQ/F7KXlx7ULyFnxqO3QM22JmBWOG1oNlw+VlXYq0ZfJh1ZkyYW POxNdyimreqOVc/BHU8DAIfS9og/EkyLXqBj2AT4eAEZ0MUNdqB6WMllitaN7/yDumod ggxzf4tG5ECcStYV4bOEUZYKehaYoeHWOsvQZB15sdYZbOhVGIGtY6Z0w8Hu7EuhJ/uD du/Thd4PaHXOqKdw+2WbSzSIzBtrj18PENuPmSJLv60Dp+OeKCnxgrQzalSh5mYo593S cOI8HlUOB0q/GEYgypFoRNF3TGsRNK/EXM0MoiwNj9577/5AEm4C/4g5w76y9U9Z1TgY H0NQ== X-Received: by 10.194.175.193 with SMTP id cc1mr209705wjc.54.1380870306688; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ithaqua.etoilebsd.net (ithaqua.etoilebsd.net. [37.59.37.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sh5sm6881686wic.11.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:05:03 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Matthew Seaman Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <20131004070503.GF72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20131003084814.GB99713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524D6059.2000700@FreeBSD.org> <524DD120.4000701@freebsd.org> <20131003203501.GA1371@medusa.sysfault.org> <20131004061833.GA1367@medusa.sysfault.org> <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524E679B.9010103@infracaninophile.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <524E679B.9010103@infracaninophile.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Apestegu=EDa?= X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 07:05:09 -0000 --+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:00:43AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 04/10/2013 07:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, tha= t also > > makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they b= oth > > 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,= and > > that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Why = having > > .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. Sho= uld we be > > nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is the= question > > to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. >=20 > Can't we have the best of both worlds? >=20 > We're already planning on creating sub-packages for eg. docs and > examples. The default will be to install docs etc. sub-packages > automatically unless the user opts out in some way. I imagine there > will be a global switch somewhere -- in pkg.conf or similar[*]. >=20 > Couldn't we work devel packages in the same way? Install by default > alongside the main package unless explicitly requested not to. >=20 > I think having the capability to selectively install parts of packages > like this is important and useful functionality and something that will > be indispensible for eg. embedded platforms. But not an option that the > vast majority of ordinary users will need to exercise. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Matthew >=20 > [*] The precise mechanism for choosing which sub-package bits to install > has not yet been written. If anyone has any bright ideas about how this > should all work, then I'd be interested to hear them. >=20 That is another possiblity, I do prefer Erwin's idea about the -full, but t= his also makes a lot of sense. regards, Bapt --+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJOaJ8ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExGvQCgpAG64q1izvMhSSn+wC3APOrt /0IAn2kPJ6YeNoqgylfInhHjc5nnu/MF =UFaW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8--