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

[Warren Block]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Lev Serebryakov wrote:

> Hello, Matthieu.
> You wrote 8 ???? 2014 ?., 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.

This is less work and complication, and sounds like it will be enough to 
satisfy people.  Later, if a split into more slave ports is needed, it 
can be done then.