On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:21:40PM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > 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?
Different packages selectively extracts will bring nothing useful.
pgpXkdLK4c3wg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
