Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:44:33 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <20120626084433.GJ41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20120626103400.Horde.8frYBVNNcXdP6XP4ZP-0deA@webmail.df.eu> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20120626103400.Horde.8frYBVNNcXdP6XP4ZP-0deA@webmail.df.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--tAmVnWIZ6lqEAvSf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: > Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>: >=20 > > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote: > >>>> 1. Ports are not modular > > > >>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it > >>> is coming, > >>> but it takes time > > > >> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-b= in, > >> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). > > > > Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about > > here. Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing? >=20 > Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers to rip > upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additional t= asks > to perform for what particular benefit (except saving some disk space)? >=20 > If I want to do some development the Debian way, I would need to do the > following: >=20 > - install foo-bin (if it ships with binaries) > - install foo-lib (libraries, etc.) > - install foo-dev (headers, etc.) > - install foo-doc (API docs) >=20 > With the ports I am currently doing: >=20 > - install foo >=20 yes but you do not allow to install 2 packages one depending on mysql51 and= one depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just because of developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict. I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it make se= nse. In the case you give I would probably split the package that way: foo (everything needed in runtime: bin + libraries) foo-dev (everything needed for developper: headers, static libraries, pkg-c= onfig stuff, libtool stuff, API docs) foo-docs (all user documentation about the runtime) of course there will be no rule on how to split packages, just common sense= =2E=20 regards, Bapt --tAmVnWIZ6lqEAvSf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/pdnEACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyTkgCaA7u5GnRbOF8+/b98dQVXYtDW 1zYAoK+b8VNaUwFqg3uD27zcJtgDliZt =Dbac -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tAmVnWIZ6lqEAvSf--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120626084433.GJ41054>