Port system "problems"

Baptiste Daroussin bapt at FreeBSD.org
Wed Jun 27 10:08:52 UTC 2012


On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, 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.
> 
> Seconded. For newcomers, such a package system is as complex as an
> Ubuntu or Debian (under the hood), if they "just want to do X".
> 
> Archlinux does provide complete packages, which makes perfect sense for
> me. I still do not see any reason or argument on why we would need
> sub-packages.
> 

Wrong archlinux provides subpackages, just no splitted the debian way. I also
don't want splitting that way.

anyway.

Bap
-------------- 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/20120627/69a98fda/attachment.pgp


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list