On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: > On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: > > >> Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk>: > > >> > > >> > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote: > > >> >>>> 1. Ports are not modular > > >> > > > >> >>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it > > >> >>> is coming, > > >> >>> but it takes time > > >> > > > >> >> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here > > >> >> (foo-bin, > > >> >> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). > > >> > > > >> > Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about > > >> > here. Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing? > > >> > > >> Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers to rip > > >> upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additional > > >> tasks > > >> to perform for what particular benefit (except saving some disk space)? > > >> > > >> If I want to do some development the Debian way, I would need to do the > > >> following: > > >> > > >> - install foo-bin (if it ships with binaries) > > >> - install foo-lib (libraries, etc.) > > >> - install foo-dev (headers, etc.) > > >> - install foo-doc (API docs) > > >> > > >> With the ports I am currently doing: > > >> > > >> - install foo > > > > I agree. > > > > > yes but you do not allow to install 2 packages one depending on mysql51 > > > and one > > > depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just because > > > of > > > developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict. > > > > > > I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it make > > > sense. > > > > > > In the case you give I would probably split the package that way: > > > foo (everything needed in runtime: bin + libraries) > > > foo-dev (everything needed for developper: headers, static libraries, > > > pkg-config > > > stuff, libtool stuff, API docs) > > > foo-docs (all user documentation about the runtime) > > > > > > of course there will be no rule on how to split packages, just common > > > sense. > > > > Disagree. We shouldn't split for that. Have you seen how many Linux > > users report when they can't compile one of application, just because > > they didn't install the *-dev? A LOT (thousands and thousands)! When > > it's A LOT then it means that it's flawed. If the upstream provide the > > split tarballs then I do not have any problem with it. > > Seconded. For newcomers, such a package system is as complex as an > Ubuntu or Debian (under the hood), if they "just want to do X". > > Archlinux does provide complete packages, which makes perfect sense for > me. I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need > sub-packages. >
Wrong archlinux provides subpackages, just no splitted the debian way. I also don't want splitting that way. anyway. Bap
pgpmTcfjqqxMf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
