On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 26/06/2012 19:46, Marcus von Appen wrote: > > I can't see that from the rough outline given earlier. What I understood > > is that some stagedir is used to build mono, then packages (-lib, -doc, > > -whatever) are created and installed. > > If you do not use downloaded packages, but install them yourself, you'd > > need to rebuild the complete mono port on an update. > > > > Happy to be corrected here > > I don't know anything about the particulars of the mono port, but if it > makes sense to divide it into several slave ports, then that will still > be possible. Use of sub-ports is not going to be mandatory. Well, > possibly with the exception of docs and/or examples, but that shouldn't > be a huge burden for anyone.
Right - we should be careful about how to split ports, however. And some -dev/-bin/-lib/-doc approach is nothing I would consider benefitial. A port with sub-packages based on functionality, which can be installed according to the use case provided by Mark makes more sense here. > Remember what the big win is here: a binary package system that is fit > for purpose and that preserves as much of the functionality and > flexibility of the ports as possible. Yes, compiling from source > yourself is the gold standard, but we think it would be pretty great if > there was a binary package management system that was good enough that > you don't actually /have/ to do that if you don't want to. Exactly. Also, you need to consider the maintainers. It must be ensured, that they do not have to fiddle with nth of sub-package adjustments just to support those properly. Cheers Marcus
pgpurm120WTtX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
