Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:12:35 +0200 From: Lev <leventelist@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkg vs. port tree install Message-ID: <20150710231235.07b94cb1@jive.levalinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20150710230228.e5af6a3c.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20150710221129.639305cd@jive.levalinux.org> <20150710222219.c285e959.freebsd@edvax.de> <20150710224227.61057aa0@jive.levalinux.org> <20150710230228.e5af6a3c.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:02:28 +0200 Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: > Because the port maintainer who sets the default options > decided that this is not a good idea. :-) > > In many cases, users seem to prefer the command-line git. > When you add git-gui and gitk, both compile-time and > run-time dependencies will increase. X will be required, > along with many many libraries (due to the many involved > levels of abstraction and dependendy). So the package is > a "functional minimum", not a "possible maximum". Users > who wish to extend the functionality can easily do so > by building from source. > > However, pkg will probably soon find a way to deal with > this: "package flavors", where you can chose a precompiled > binary package depending on options. This is interesting. > If you have n options, you'd need 2^n packages... :-) That makes sense. I'd do a git-full package. Like texlive-base, texlive-full. Thank you for the information. Regards, Lev -- 73 de HA5OGL Op.: Levente
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150710231235.07b94cb1>