Splitting devel/subversion into SEVERAL ports -- how fine-grained do we want to see it?

[Lev Serebryakov]

Hello, Matthieu.
You wrote 8 июня 2014 г., 15:41:42:

MV> Holy...

MV> Is this Debian now? How about 14 packages to have granularity over what
MV> sub-library needed, and 23 others for each svn* command? And don't forget headers.

MV> An aspect of ports I liked was it followed/respected the upstream
MV> packaging mindset, instead of going for artificial repackaging like
MV> linux distros. This minigame of cutting other people works in tiny
MV> atomics bits so I have to figure what is missing at runtime is tiresome.

MV> If this is a binary/options issue, I'd rather see an effort in
MV> providing a system able to allow using globally packages with local
MV> build when desired options differs, and the reverse (build everything
MV> except a list of stuff where binary is prefered).
  With pkgng in play, I get more and more requests from people, who want to
 use only binary packages. And when such vital (for many) features as
 mod_dav_svn and (not so vital, but desirable) DE integration is non-default
 options of single port, it could not be done.

  BTW, nobody objects against separated language bindings, especially Java
 ones :)

  Really, I get requests to have "mod_dav_svn" package at least twice a month
 for all time subversion port exists. But, yes, maybe separation to
 libraries and binaries is too much, and I need only extract apache-related
 stuff and DE-related stuff.

-- 
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev at FreeBSD.org>