Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 00:48:34 -0800 From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Option vs. flavor? Message-ID: <c1317132-0850-d033-49bb-f40258ddb6e5@rawbw.com> In-Reply-To: <FC78B364-3688-40D0-83D8-24025201B683@adamw.org> References: <ee10fa7f-9107-1c35-8540-ff34d306865d@rawbw.com> <FC78B364-3688-40D0-83D8-24025201B683@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/16/17 22:06, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > Is the port of any use without the data file? If everybody who uses > the port needs the data file, I wouldn't make it an option at all. The > precedent is that ports with huge data files are marked NO_PACKAGE, so > there's no impact on the package builders. Make it non-optional, mark > it as NO_PACKAGE, and then the port works for all users. > > If, however, the port IS real-world usable without the data files, I'd > turn the data file into a second port. That way, package people can > very easily install the NO_BUILD slave and still install the main > program by pkg. Hi Adam, It is usable without data. Portions of the data are recommended to be downloaded into the specific directory for particular functions. Of course, it's more convenient to just a have all of it installed, and users will need all of it for all functions. This is the large physics package called Geant4 for simulation of the passage of particles through matter. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13504 Yuri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c1317132-0850-d033-49bb-f40258ddb6e5>