Port system "problems"

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:17:12AM +0200, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> On 06/26/12 09:58, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Can I share my 2c?
> 
> Because it will just multiply be three the number of ports each of us 
> has to install/maintain/upgrade/etc...
> 

Not at all for a maintainer it will be the same has having multiple options,
because it will remain 1 port -> N packages

Most of the time the ports are already splitted in slave ports (samba, *sql*,
ldap etc), having them in a single port will simplify life of lots of
maintainers, and simplify the port code

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/20120626/0ddf1aef/attachment.pgp