Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:50:43 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <CAGwOe2ZPbyNoF=0pDCdJfbbua8cCihguwBDURs0BtwesG5viVQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20131004070158.GE72453@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> <20131004065753.GV82824@droso.dk> <20131004070158.GE72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:57:53AM +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please no devel packages. > > > > > > > > > > > > Seconded. > > > > > > > > > > What's wrong with devel packages? > > > > > > > > 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 > platform. > > > > > > > > > > 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, 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. > > > > > > Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. > Should 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > > I do like that idea very much, and it is easily doable with stage :) > +1 If I'm going to install a FreeBSD system for normal PC use (firefox, media player, etc) I don't need all the .h and developing stuff. OTOH onn my machine I would like everything. Would this increase a lot the number of packages/the time to build a new repository? > > regards, > Bapt >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGwOe2ZPbyNoF=0pDCdJfbbua8cCihguwBDURs0BtwesG5viVQ>