Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:29:45 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <20131004132945.GL72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <524EB31C.6060102@quip.cz> 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> <20131004070503.GF72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524EB31C.6060102@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Bzq2cJcN05fcPrs+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:22:52PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > 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, t= hat also > >>> makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they= both > >>> provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 versi= on at > >>> runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building locall= y, and > >>> that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Wh= y having > >>> .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI si= ze, etc. > >>> > >>> Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. S= hould we be > >>> nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is t= he question > >>> to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. > >> > >> Can't we have the best of both worlds? > >> > >> 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[*]. > >> > >> Couldn't we work devel packages in the same way? Install by default > >> alongside the main package unless explicitly requested not to. > >> > >> 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 t= he > >> vast majority of ordinary users will need to exercise. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> [*] The precise mechanism for choosing which sub-package bits to insta= ll > >> has not yet been written. If anyone has any bright ideas about how th= is > >> should all work, then I'd be interested to hear them. > >> > > > > That is another possiblity, I do prefer Erwin's idea about the -full, b= ut this > > also makes a lot of sense. >=20 > I really like the current state with full packages. Disk space is cheap,= =20 > full packages is default for whole FreeBSD existence and it is easy to=20 > maintain the system with it. If I want portA and portB, I just install=20 > portA and portB and if I want to see installed ports, I see two ports=20 > installed and not a bunch of lines like: > portA-bin > portA-doc > portA-dev > portB-bin > portB-doc > portB-dev >=20 > When I need to update those ports, I will update two ports, not six or=20 > more ports / sub ports. >=20 > Embedded systems are corner case, where many things need to be tweaked=20 > anyway. >=20 > So I like the idea of default full packages with possibility to=20 > optionally select and install sub parts for those who really need the=20 > fine grained list of packages. That is because you keep thinking you have to build those ports yourself, w= e are here speaking of binary packages. regards, Bapt --Bzq2cJcN05fcPrs+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJOwskACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExmIQCbBOZ6rj302chfnrCXxplHk89v CBEAnjV1UWGJtfUNh1B92VIdR8kZgcSI =9Uki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Bzq2cJcN05fcPrs+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131004132945.GL72453>