Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:18:05 +0200 From: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <20120626211805.GJ2540@medusa.sysfault.org> In-Reply-To: <4FEA142C.5040408@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE97008.2060501@netfence.it> <4FE97AE1.9080109@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE98D5F.1070608@gmail.com> <20120626184649.GB2540@medusa.sysfault.org> <4FEA142C.5040408@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--wRtZRu2mMGBZ6YQ7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 26/06/2012 19:46, Marcus von Appen wrote: > > I can't see that from the rough outline given earlier. What I understood > > is that some stagedir is used to build mono, then packages (-lib, -doc, > > -whatever) are created and installed. > > If you do not use downloaded packages, but install them yourself, you'd > > need to rebuild the complete mono port on an update. > > > > Happy to be corrected here > > I don't know anything about the particulars of the mono port, but if it > makes sense to divide it into several slave ports, then that will still > be possible. Use of sub-ports is not going to be mandatory. Well, > possibly with the exception of docs and/or examples, but that shouldn't > be a huge burden for anyone. Right - we should be careful about how to split ports, however. And some -dev/-bin/-lib/-doc approach is nothing I would consider benefitial. A port with sub-packages based on functionality, which can be installed according to the use case provided by Mark makes more sense here. > Remember what the big win is here: a binary package system that is fit > for purpose and that preserves as much of the functionality and > flexibility of the ports as possible. Yes, compiling from source > yourself is the gold standard, but we think it would be pretty great if > there was a binary package management system that was good enough that > you don't actually /have/ to do that if you don't want to. Exactly. Also, you need to consider the maintainers. It must be ensured, that they do not have to fiddle with nth of sub-package adjustments just to support those properly. Cheers Marcus --wRtZRu2mMGBZ6YQ7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/qJw0ACgkQi68/ErJnpkftzQCfc9fkRdSfSRjdf5fX1HrxmR8W XVUAnihMEuN/M/5wNAHfZSIno9j59mS8 =dMVH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRtZRu2mMGBZ6YQ7--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120626211805.GJ2540>