2013/10/8 Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org>: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:20:21PM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: >> 2013/10/4 Bryan Drewery <br...@shatow.net>: >> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:01:58AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> >> 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 :) >> > >> > +1 to splitting packages for embedded usage. >> >> -1 for the split, as it will not fix anybody's problem. >> >> On regular machines, disk space is cheap and having to install more >> packages is just annoying to users. Think of the time wasted that >> people are told to apt-get libfoo-dev before they can build anything >> from github, or similar. >> >> If you actually *are* space constricted on your tiny embedded machine, >> what the fuck are you doing with the sqlite database and all the >> metadata about ports/packages anyway? Just rm /usr/include and >> /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man, etc. when building your disk image. >> But you are doing that already anyway, so this solves no actual >> problem for you. >> >> My two cents >> Uli > > You are totally misunderstanding the goal of sub packages. Right now people > are > asking for nox11, noportdocs, noportexamples, etc and all sort of knob, when > building resulting in a nightmare for the package system, a given package > might > or might not have a file depending on the knob, this is totally insane.
Yes it is, and I fully understand that part and have been advocating for one package that has everything, but might only extract 80% depending on OPTIONS, for some time now. I just don't want us to have 20.000 ports now, and then 40.000 ports because we split things into user/dev ports/packages. I'm totally cool with having a tweaked package here and there to fix several annoyances as you've outlined below. Seriously, make it happen! A user should not care, if not installing headers for package X solves a conflict, do it! But please don't make it a default to not install headers because 3% of the FreeBSD system builders might find it useful. It looks like a lot of the arguments are because there's a different understanding of what a -dev package is, and of course everyone just knows what they are in linux-land, and they suck. That's why you see some pushback on this list. > Here is a list of things the sub package solves (among full other things): > - Stupid conflicts like libjpeg and libjpeg-turbo, that conflicts because they > have the same dev files, meaning that people cannot end up with packages > bringing both libraries where there are no technical restrictions about it. > a > more accurate examples is probably all the databases clients like pgsql or > mysql etc. > - Allow to not split in tons of different ports things like qt and php. Yes, please! > - Not providing .h, .a, .la, etc files also makes it more complicated for > someone to build something on a production server. Why the hell does a > production would need a compiler and anything related to build? except > making > it easier for an attacked to build and run its own software easily that has > no > meaning imho. That argument doesn't hold. If an attacker can upload source code to a machine, they can also upload binaries. But yeah, people might want to do this for whatever lock-down reasons. > - Allow to bring cross compilation in the ports tree without too much > headache. > To get cross compilation working the more atomic the packages are the > simpler > it is. As we need for some build to have both native and target packages for > example gettext: all the bin/* should be native one and are needed while > building, whereas we need target version of libintl. Same goes for libxstl > and > xsltproc, it is very easier to flag them if they are small packages. (Yes I > am > really close to get cross buidling working in the ports tree and yes having > splitted packages will help me a lot here.) Ah, so they actually solve a big problem for the FreeBSD project, I wasn't aware of that. > - Yes diskspace and bandwidth matters, Not everyone has a large bandwidth > internet access, I have personnally setup a couple of FreeBSD servers in > countries, bandwidth is not cheap at all. All claims about this approach saving bandwidth should provide the numbers that a bin/dev package split will actually save them. I don't say it doesn't, but this is easy to measure and would make the argument that much stronger ... > If you all want flat packages then stop asking for nox11 nonls nodocs etc. > > Some examples of weirdness because we do not split packages: > - glib2 bring python as a dependency (just because a developper only script is > in python), and NO glib port has not to be fixed here it does what we should > do. > - Lots of people complained about pkg-config being a run dep. But if we are > consistent every single port bring .pc files should then run depend on > pkg-config because .pc files are useless without pkg-config. > - People complain about having to depend on the full fat gcc46 just because > of the > fact that their packages is linked to on of the libraries part of gcc46. But how would you save on bandwidth here? Will the gcc46 port result in packages gcc46-bin.tbz, gcc46-dev.tbz, gcc46-lib.tbz, or will it be one archive that selectively extracts things based on what the user needs? > - Trying installing both gnome2 and kde4 on the same box this is impossible > just > because gnome2 will at a moment pull in unixODBC and kde4 will pull in > libiodbc, which in fact doesn't conflict in a binary world, they only > conflicts on developpement only files! (don't tell me we don't have a > dependency hell here.) > > Concerning the dependency hell, we already have it, in fact it is easier to > solve the dependency hell with small atomic packages than with big large > packages. The other way is to go doing PBIs like packages, but even doing PBI, > will benefit a lot from splitted packages, because they will be smaller than > the > acutal one, meaning faster to upgrade, faster to fetch, faster to install, and > easier to maintain. (Remember they are created out of regular packages.) > > Concerning the fact that you need a couple of new packages to be able to > actually build something out github or whatever, this is a developer problem > and > doing pkg install gtk2-dev is not complicated at all. And remember that most > users are NOT developers, they are just USERS they just want to get things > running not to compile them. > > Once again I'm not advocacing for any kind of -dev packages yet, we have lot > of > more important problem to solve before going that way. Fair enough. Once dev-packages-by-default become a reality, there'll be some more heated discussions :) Cheers, UIi _______________________________________________ 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"