From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 6 22:44:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA67C10656D2; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:44:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net (eastrmmtao102.cox.net [68.230.240.8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB468FC21; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:44:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090406224407.YVRY4619.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net>; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:44:07 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.103.37.153]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id cNk61b0093JFCbG02Nk6ib; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:44:06 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=5TZ9hQYgZOGRbe29FowA:9 a=SCbd8IpdlpwpNz-ZUEEj42uBn08A:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 a=WKKDnHgqpS8A:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:44:05 -0500 To: "Dmitry Marakasov" From: "Jeremy Messenger" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3cb459ed0903270809s2da0fce7i66686a176d369931@mail.gmail.com> <20090331230246.GN1964@hades.panopticon> <20090401113857.GO1964@hades.panopticon> <3cb459ed0904020821u3051c572l6461274ae7ff118b@mail.gmail.com> <20090402224413.GV1964@hades.panopticon> <3cb459ed0904030632x215f1e3n25363903a80b5639@mail.gmail.com> <20090403155011.GC60788@hades.panopticon> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20090403155011.GC60788@hades.panopticon> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.64 (Linux) Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Alexander Churanov , lwhsu@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of devel/boost upgrade 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: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:44:09 -0000 On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:50:11 -0600, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > * Alexander Churanov (alexanderchuranov@gmail.com) wrote: > >> There are 95 libraries in boost. > > Woo, that's sure too many. > >> Let me explain that: >> Boost has source-only libraries and separately-compiled libraries. >> Source-only libraries consist of header files only and do not require >> any compilation at all. Separately-compiled libraries consist of BOTH >> header files and shared library objects. > > Yeah, I know that. > >> I often use source-libraries only. For example currently in a project >> at work I use "interprocess", "function", "smart ptr". Neither of >> them requires compilation. Hence the idea. > > There sure is a point. However I still don't like tearing the port in > half based on some unpractical criteria. It resembles most linux > distros' stupid way of splitting includes into separate packages > too much :) > > If you devel with boost, you probably will need some of shared libraries > sooner or later, so you will probably install the whole boost once to > not waste time for lacking components later. What's for the users, I can > see theoretical advantage - if many ports depend on header libs only, > this part of boost will be installed fast without compiling anything. > However, from my experience most ports still depend on shared libs, so > this will not really bring anything good. Can you provide any statistics > on how many ports will benefit of that? > >> So then the list of options is as follows: >> >> 1) "jam", "source-libs", "compiled-libs" (or "shared-libs"), >> "python-libs" and "docs" >> 2) "jam", "libs", "python-libs" and "docs" >> 3) "jam", "docs" and 95 ports more :-) > > I'm for 2, but not against 1 if it brings more advantages than > inconvenience. I agree with what Dmitry has said. I vote for #2. Cheers, Mezz > And there's another option between 1 and 3. > 4) "jam", "docs", "source-libs" and N more, where N is up to number of > shared libs installed by boost. For 1.37 there are 19, but some > small/related ones may be merged (maybe math? for example, ubuntu > has 13 packages for separate libs for boost 1.35 including python). > > It seem to be more logical than just source/shared ports as it will > really fasten compilation by not building unneeded parts of boost, > it's consistent with boost-python separation, it's somewhat transparent > from the point of library names (i.e. if I want ${libname} I should use > boost-${libname} if it exists, else just boost-other or how-do-we-name- > it). > > The statistics on what ports use which boost libs, and build times for > separate boost libs will really be useful. > -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org