Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:04:13 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <op.wgixxb1m34t2sn@tech304> In-Reply-To: <20120626185048.GC2540@medusa.sysfault.org> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20120626103400.Horde.8frYBVNNcXdP6XP4ZP-0deA@webmail.df.eu> <20120626084433.GJ41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <CADLFttdQ3RwhrB3Sk0UjbtT4EPW4wztPOak9KQLwR7GNyY8GZQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120626185048.GC2540@medusa.sysfault.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:50:48 -0500, Marcus von Appen <mva@freebsd.org> wrote: > I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need > sub-packages. I want up to date packages for all my servers. My servers all have different requirements -- I want Apache with LDAP here, and definitely Apache without LDAP there. Designing a package-building and deployment system for a non-homogenous server farm is an exercise in futility. Having proper sub-packages fixes this issue in a cleanly supportable fashion.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wgixxb1m34t2sn>