On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:57:53AM +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Please no devel packages. > > > > > > > > > > Seconded. > > > > > > > > What's wrong with devel packages? > > > > > > It complicates things for developers and custom software on > > > FreeBSD. The typical situation that I see on most Linux platforms is a > > > lot of confusion by people, why their custom software XYZ does not > > > properly build - the most common answer: they forgot to install a > > > tremendous amount of dev packages, containing headers, build tools and > > > whatnot. > > > On FreeBSD, you can rely on the fact that if you installed e.g. libGL, > > > you can start building your own GL applications without the need to > > > install several libGL-dev, libX11-dev, ... packages first. > > > This is something, which I personally see as a big plus of the FreeBSD > > > ports system and which makes FreeBSD attractive as a development platform. > > > > > > > On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, that > > also > > makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they both > > provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 version at > > runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building locally, and > > that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Why > > having > > .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI size, > > etc. > > > > Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. Should > > we be > > nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is the > > question > > to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. > > > > If we chose to go down that path, at least we should chose a different > name as we've used the -devel suffix for many years for developmental > versions. > > I must agree that it is one of the things high on my list of things that > irritate me with several Linux distributions but I can see the point for > for embedded systems as well. But can't we have both? Create three > packages, a default full package and split packages of -bin, -lib, > and even -doc. My first though twas to make the full package a > meta-package that would install the split packages in the background, > but that would probably be confusing for users at the end of the day, so > rather just have it be a real package. > I do like that idea very much, and it is easily doable with stage :)
regards, Bapt
pgpEmQGb6Ykvy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
