Port system "problems"

[Marcus von Appen]

On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote:

> On 26/06/2012 19:46, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> > I can't see that from the rough outline given earlier. What I understood
> > is that some stagedir is used to build mono, then packages (-lib, -doc,
> > -whatever) are created and installed.
> > If you do not use downloaded packages, but install them yourself, you'd
> > need to rebuild the complete mono port on an update.
> >
> > Happy to be corrected here
>
> I don't know anything about the particulars of the mono port, but if it
> makes sense to divide it into several slave ports, then that will still
> be possible.  Use of sub-ports is not going to be mandatory.  Well,
> possibly with the exception of docs and/or examples, but that shouldn't
> be a huge burden for anyone.

Right - we should be careful about how to split ports, however. And some
-dev/-bin/-lib/-doc approach is nothing I would consider benefitial. A
port with sub-packages based on functionality, which can be installed
according to the use case provided by Mark makes more sense here.

> Remember what the big win is here: a binary package system that is fit
> for purpose and that preserves as much of the functionality and
> flexibility of the ports as possible.  Yes, compiling from source
> yourself is the gold standard, but we think it would be pretty great if
> there was a binary package management system that was good enough that
> you don't actually /have/ to do that if you don't want to.

Exactly. Also, you need to consider the maintainers. It must be
ensured, that they do not have to fiddle with nth of sub-package
adjustments just to support those properly.

Cheers
Marcus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120626/412de745/attachment.pgp