Port system "problems"

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:47:26AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> On 26.06.2012 17:21, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin<bapt at freebsd.org>  wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> >>> Matthew Seaman<m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>:
> >>>
> >>>> On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> >>>>>>> 1. Ports are not modular
> >>>>>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it
> >>>>>> is coming,
> >>>>>> but it takes time
> >>>>> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin,
> >>>>> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....).
> >>>> Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about
> >>>> here.  Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing?
> >>> Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers to rip
> >>> upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additional tasks
> >>> to perform for what particular benefit (except saving some disk space)?
> >>>
> >>> If I want to do some development the Debian way, I would need to do the
> >>> following:
> >>>
> >>> - install foo-bin (if it ships with binaries)
> >>> - install foo-lib (libraries, etc.)
> >>> - install foo-dev (headers, etc.)
> >>> - install foo-doc (API docs)
> >>>
> >>> With the ports I am currently doing:
> >>>
> >>> - install foo
> > I agree.
> >
> >> yes but you do not allow to install 2 packages one depending on mysql51 and one
> >> depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just because of
> >> developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict.
> >>
> >> I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it make sense.
> >>
> >> In the case you give I would probably split the package that way:
> >> foo (everything needed in runtime: bin + libraries)
> >> foo-dev (everything needed for developper: headers, static libraries, pkg-config
> >> stuff, libtool stuff, API docs)
> >> foo-docs (all user documentation about the runtime)
> >>
> >> of course there will be no rule on how to split packages, just common sense.
> > Disagree. We shouldn't split for that. Have you seen how many Linux
> > users report when they can't compile one of application, just because
> > they didn't install the *-dev? A LOT (thousands and thousands)! When
> > it's A LOT then it means that it's flawed. If the upstream provide the
> > split tarballs then I do not have any problem with it.
> >
> > Also, it will slow down the ports tree pretty bad if we do that way to
> > all ports.
> >
> >> regards,
> >> Bapt
> >
> Just don't make -dev package, that's really something stupid and I agree 
> with that.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

Once again it will be written nowhere that you need or not to create a -dev
package, just do it as a maintainer if you think it make sense in your
particular case!

Bapt
-------------- 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/20120627/cafe1ff6/attachment.pgp