Port system "problems"

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:26:45AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> 
> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at FreeBSD.org>:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'm not a developer and I know how it's difficult to make a port (or
> >> some ports, for example VirtualBox) but I think the port system has many
> >> "problems":
> >>
> >> 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, ....).

I'm just talking about giving the ability to split packages :)

after that we can imagine our own way.
> 
> >> 2. Option system is not really well documented
> > What kind of documentation do you need?, please report what you are  
> > expected so
> > that we can improve it
> >
> >> 3. Some dependencies are totally useless
> > Please report PR
> >
> >> 4. So slow...
> > What is slow do you mean compiling is slow?
> >
> >>
> >> Let me give some examples:
> >>
> >> 1. games/wesnoth should be splitted in games/wesnoth-bin and
> >> games/wesnoth-datas. Why rebuild everything when just binaries needs ?
> >
> > This is coming, it takes lot of time, and some things have to be  
> > done first, in
> > the infrastructure that the user do not see much.
> 
> I do not see any necessity for infrastructure changes here - we did that
> in the past for several ports (e.g. alephone, alienarena, ...).

No be able to have sub packages and flavours (aka N packages from one port)
there are changes needed

> 
> >> 2. Why do we have to put WITH_NEW_XORG in /etc/make.conf to get it ? Why
> >> not put this var in a port configuration file which will be read by all
> >> ports needing this var ?
> >
> > Because this is not that easy, do you have a technical way to  
> > propose? I think
> > noone is really happy with the WITH_NEW_XORG, but this is the "less worse" :)
> > way we found, if you have a better way to propose, please step up  
> > and propose.
> 
> /etc/make.conf (or whatever to be included in /etc/make.conf) can be  
> seen as port
> configuration file that is evaluated by the ports. And each port picks  
> those things,
> it needs.
> 
+1

regards,
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/20120626/26596b6f/attachment.pgp