Am Samstag, den 05.10.2013, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Miroslav Lachman: > > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:22:52PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:00:43AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >>>> On 04/10/2013 07:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Can't we have the best of both worlds? > >>>> > >>>> We're already planning on creating sub-packages for eg. docs and > >>>> examples. The default will be to install docs etc. sub-packages > >>>> automatically unless the user opts out in some way. I imagine there > >>>> will be a global switch somewhere -- in pkg.conf or similar[*]. > >>>> > >>>> Couldn't we work devel packages in the same way? Install by default > >>>> alongside the main package unless explicitly requested not to. > >>>> > >>>> I think having the capability to selectively install parts of packages > >>>> like this is important and useful functionality and something that will > >>>> be indispensible for eg. embedded platforms. But not an option that the > >>>> vast majority of ordinary users will need to exercise. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Matthew > >>>> > >>>> [*] The precise mechanism for choosing which sub-package bits to install > >>>> has not yet been written. If anyone has any bright ideas about how this > >>>> should all work, then I'd be interested to hear them. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That is another possiblity, I do prefer Erwin's idea about the -full, but > >>> this > >>> also makes a lot of sense. > >> > >> I really like the current state with full packages. Disk space is cheap, > >> full packages is default for whole FreeBSD existence and it is easy to > >> maintain the system with it. If I want portA and portB, I just install > >> portA and portB and if I want to see installed ports, I see two ports > >> installed and not a bunch of lines like: > >> portA-bin > >> portA-doc > >> portA-dev > >> portB-bin > >> portB-doc > >> portB-dev > >> > >> When I need to update those ports, I will update two ports, not six or > >> more ports / sub ports. > >> > >> Embedded systems are corner case, where many things need to be tweaked > >> anyway. > >> > >> So I like the idea of default full packages with possibility to > >> optionally select and install sub parts for those who really need the > >> fine grained list of packages. > > > > That is because you keep thinking you have to build those ports yourself, > > we are > > here speaking of binary packages. > > I don't think it's about building ports. It's about the list of what I > need to have installed and maintained on our systems. And with this > split to more packages, then the list will grow and tracking of changes > and dependencies will become hell like on Linux distributions.
+1 Mathias > > Miroslav Lachman > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
