Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:16:42 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, Matthieu Volat <mazhe@alkumuna.eu>, David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: harder and harder to avoid pkg Message-ID: <b6a90579-c7b8-6d53-8a03-2863f5f8196e@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <170c7cbd-306c-4d3a-2af0-2eaf4fe41b24@freebsd.org> References: <638fe078-80db-2492-90be-f1280eb8d445@freebsd.org> <20161012092403.66a41d9e@freedom.alkumuna.eu> <00f3768e-f57a-661c-aa62-89cdf10926bd@netfence.it> <CAO%2BPfDfLtw6OjPvrMC5hzfEL1CH7wyLZ0=RQstqZrRmOmk5pxA@mail.gmail.com> <a8a151c8-9f44-f057-4d16-675924229cbe@freebsd.org> <5a38b25d-2ac9-cd9b-0701-fbaad5af06c0@FreeBSD.org> <20161014092250.oyi6d5iks3s4pjol@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAO%2BPfDcAnxDMMYHiUUtfictk7m3mYRr9MRqdWChG4Yk2ieVrUA@mail.gmail.com> <20161014132700.493b78a6@freedom.alkumuna.eu> <170c7cbd-306c-4d3a-2af0-2eaf4fe41b24@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Has anyone actually looked/asked how other OS's solve this problem? I too found "xxx-dev" vs "xxx-lib" annoying until I realized how clean it actually is. We should definitely be surveying the landscape before rolling our own NIH solution. -Alfred On 10/14/16 8:30 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 14/10/2016 4:27 AM, Matthieu Volat wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:05:35 +0200 >> David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 2016-10-14 11:22 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>: >>>> It is imho doable in both sides. >>>> >>>> We could imagine tagging the plist/manifest so pkg can allow a user >>>> to install >>>> only the things tagged as runtime for exemple which would do the >>>> job. for what >>>> Julian is asking for beside adding lots of complexity pkg(8) and >>>> adding a >>>> nightmare in the solver. >>>> >>>> That would "please" the people that want "hey keep the giant flat >>>> package as it >>>> is better for dev given I don't have to install the -devel version >>>> something" >>>> and the people wanting fine grain selection if they need to. >>>> >>>> But on the ports side that would be a nightmare having to tag all >>>> the plist (and >>>> this cannot be automated because there are to many corner cases. >>> IIRC, rpm builders have script that automate this by finding files in >>> standard directories. Probably by checking in the stage a include/ >>> directory and "tag" it as the development part. >> Unless things changed very recently, not quite : you have to pile >> subpackage declaration and files sections according to the >> subpackages you create. The only things it has to ease the burden is >> you can use wildcard patterns to select files. >> >>> It will be the most smart way of doing this but still require some >>> addition to pkg. Probably like: >>> >>> - pkg install mylib >>> - pkg install -t dev mylib >>> - pkg install -t runtime mylib >>> - pkg install -t dev,runtime,doc mylib >>> >>> Just thinking ;) >> More options, then more options to `pkg info` to get what was >> installed when something cannot build, then more pkg search options >> and manpage because more "-t" flags will be added and we don't know >> what's needed? >> > I'm glad people are at least thinking about it... > > I don't think there are so many categories. Are we installing onto a > development machine, user machine, or an appliance? appliances don't > need man pages. User machines need man pages for programs but not for > libraries and developer machines.. everything.. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b6a90579-c7b8-6d53-8a03-2863f5f8196e>