Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:57:05 +0200 From: Matthieu Volat <mazhe@alkumuna.eu> To: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dependency explosions Message-ID: <20161003165705.0e2e5e5a@freedom.alkumuna.eu> In-Reply-To: <6d1eb20d-4597-8176-3dbd-661648a6a03c@gjunka.com> References: <2df71272-7b98-ad73-650a-3ec70beb71d5@freebsd.org> <d14d1aaf-5bdb-2e09-2892-2e32c4db0810@FreeBSD.org> <19d248ae-8919-fdc9-84e8-ff90ae761e6f@gjunka.com> <20161003151148.4860ca1a@curlew.lan> <6d1eb20d-4597-8176-3dbd-661648a6a03c@gjunka.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/8hfOz_ZLwDB12d2C5jY/CtY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:29:27 +0000 Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> wrote: > On 03/10/2016 14:11, Mike Clarke wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:11:43 +0000 > > Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> wrote: > > > >> Shouldn't all packages default to noX dependencies? If I am not mistak= en > >> FreeBSD is predominantly a server-side system, with X running only > >> occasionally > > I'd disagree with that. I don't know whether or not the majority of > > FreeBSD installations are servers or personal computers but the chances > > are that the majority of server installations will have relatively few > > packages installed whereas most PC's are likely to make use of far > > more packages and are also likely to be using X. Building from ports > > to get the required options would be a much bigger task for these > > installations than it would be for the servers. > > >=20 > I have been wondering if it would be possible to have two distinct set=20 > of packages compiled automatically, one tailored for X and one for the=20 > console. It seems that requirements of both environment are quite=20 > opposite. The server-side requires small amount of packages without X=20 > because it wants to run the system headless, as long as possible and=20 > without interruptions and restarts. Whereas the X/PC environment always=20 > wants to have everything latest and newest. In the Linux world they=20 > would just create a new distribution, even in the BSD world there is=20 > PC-BSD/TrueOS. But we have ports and can re-use the same base for two=20 > distinctive set of packages. I don't believe we can create pre-compiled=20 > packages for FreeBSD in such a way, that both camps are happy (which=20 > this thread is one of many signs of). >=20 > Grzegorz That must be somehow possible and even extensible to be something like macp= orts variants, except with binary package support (macports localy build pa= ckages when user defined option differs from default); but this would take = signifiant space and processing power... On the other hand, setting OPTIONS_UNSET to include X11 is quite trivial. I= would expect a server administrator to be more proficient in that kind of = settings... PS. I agree with the multiplication of dependencies, but I see them as the = result of nowaday FOSS ecosystem practices rather than port management issu= es. --=20 Matthieu Volat <mazhe@alkumuna.eu> --Sig_/8hfOz_ZLwDB12d2C5jY/CtY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlfyccEACgkQ+ENDeYKZi34rIgCfcZlLlZm7dcCoDMJDwoGY80Z/ UC4AoKSE0eanOTz7IYbSc0J4BO63E/fh =WKfu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/8hfOz_ZLwDB12d2C5jY/CtY--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161003165705.0e2e5e5a>