Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:05:03 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <20131004070503.GF72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <524E679B.9010103@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20131003084814.GB99713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524D6059.2000700@FreeBSD.org> <524DD120.4000701@freebsd.org> <20131003203501.GA1371@medusa.sysfault.org> <CAGwOe2Ye2MLz3QpyMW3wyN9ew%2BiNnTETS1oOi_%2B8dPehUcWa0w@mail.gmail.com> <20131004061833.GA1367@medusa.sysfault.org> <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524E679B.9010103@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:00:43AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 04/10/2013 07:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, tha= t also > > makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they b= oth > > provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 version= at > > runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building locally,= and > > that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Why = having > > .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI size= , etc. > >=20 > > Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. Sho= uld we be > > nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is the= question > > to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. >=20 > Can't we have the best of both worlds? >=20 > We're already planning on creating sub-packages for eg. docs and > examples. The default will be to install docs etc. sub-packages > automatically unless the user opts out in some way. I imagine there > will be a global switch somewhere -- in pkg.conf or similar[*]. >=20 > Couldn't we work devel packages in the same way? Install by default > alongside the main package unless explicitly requested not to. >=20 > I think having the capability to selectively install parts of packages > like this is important and useful functionality and something that will > be indispensible for eg. embedded platforms. But not an option that the > vast majority of ordinary users will need to exercise. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Matthew >=20 > [*] The precise mechanism for choosing which sub-package bits to install > has not yet been written. If anyone has any bright ideas about how this > should all work, then I'd be interested to hear them. >=20 That is another possiblity, I do prefer Erwin's idea about the -full, but t= his also makes a lot of sense. regards, Bapt --+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJOaJ8ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExGvQCgpAG64q1izvMhSSn+wC3APOrt /0IAn2kPJ6YeNoqgylfInhHjc5nnu/MF =UFaW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131004070503.GF72453>