Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:56:11 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20041015141551.GA80394@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <200410151404.i9FE4Jrc006244@peedub.jennejohn.org> <20041015141551.GA80394@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1464924.GOFH3xG3ic Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 15 October 2004 16:15, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 04:04:19PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > Michael Nottebrock writes: > > > This is exactly why we need more fine-grained (slave-)-ports that > > > translate features into binary packages which can be added and removed > > > easily. If a user asks "How can I get this or that feature in $packag= e" > > > and the answer is "you need install the ports-collection, set some > > > option and then recompile the port" it means that the port is flawed > > > and a slave-port which translates the feature into a binary package is > > > needed. > > > > You're joking, right? I certainly am not prepared or willing to make a > > slave port for every twinkie option in the ports which I maintain!=20 Not at all. If there is a feature that is of potential interest for a great= =20 number of users and is not enabled by default in the package, you should ve= ry=20 seriously consider making a packagable port for it. > > Especially when you consider ports like multimedia/mplayer which has > over 20 different options that are independent of each other. If you > want a slave-port for each (valid) combination of options, you would > need over 2^20 different slave ports. Adding a million extra > slave-ports just to make sure that nobody ever needs to recompile a > port instead of using a binary package is just not realistic. Look at Debian and tell me again it's not realistic. And I'm not suggesting= =20 going as far as Debian does. > Personally I tend to think there are too many slave-ports already which > just take up a lot of space in the ports-tree and make updating the > ports-tree go slower, but then I almost never use binary packages but > build everything from source. (I.e. I would probably barely notice if > all binary packages suddenly disappeared never to return.) I realise that there is a fraction of ports users which don't care about=20 packages at all (and could be using gentoo just as well), but they are not= =20 the primary target audience of ports, as I pointed out before. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --nextPart1464924.GOFH3xG3ic Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.9.10 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBcCtfXhc68WspdLARAqj+AJ9oIh3/ztW7An9gb6tx3gLTz1qQfACfX7Ij Exa33OxdpGRw4YTjJchXPfY= =1D1J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1464924.GOFH3xG3ic--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock>