ports/pkg/OS integration 2.0 (was: Re: Removing documentation)

[Royce Williams]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Roger Marquis <marquis at roble.com> wrote:
>>> (The Ubuntu /etc/alternatives symlink system and other mechanisms solve
>>> this well)
>
>
> That hasn't been my experience but then I'm not a big fan of symlinks
> which can't be safely modified outside of the (d)pkg system.  As a
> general rule you want to avoid such unnecessary layers of abstraction
> where possible.
>
>>> * if the user's port configuration options aren't different from the
>>> package defaults, ask the user if they want to use the package instead
>>> (with global and per-port knobs to stop asking if the user desires).
>
>
> Can't really see much use for this.  Those of us building from source
> know when we can install a binary and nobody really wants to be
> held-up by another prompt.

That's exactly why I suggested the knobs.

I regularly run into circumstances where I want to tweak a config
option for one port, but I'd actually prefer that its dependencies be
packages ... until I need to tweak something else.

So in my pie-in-the-sky world, when an upgrade triggers the need to
upgrade a dependency, if the config options haven't changed, then
install the package automatically; otherwise, show me the new config
options (highlighted!), and ask me if I want to change the defaults.
If I do, that dependency becomes managed from ports.  If I don't, it
stays managed by packages.

The knobs would let you make this behavior possible -- or not.

It would be nice to be asked at the point of installing the system
what kind of software management you want:

[X] Install software from binary packages only
[ ] Install software from ports only (compiling everything locally)
[ ] Prefer packages, prompting me when default options change
[ ] Prefer ports, but use packages if the port options are identical

Royce