harder and harder to avoid pkg

[Julian Elischer]

On 11/10/2016 5:34 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Make a slave port with an abbreviated pkg-plist bruh. ;)
yeeess, good idea, but that won't satisfy the dependency requirements 
of other packages... you need to fool other packages, and that's the 
hard part. The way to do this is I think for pkg to have the ability 
to have two manifests.

We are doing similar to what Roger says, but it's just so much work...

>
> -Alfred
>
>
> On 10/11/16 11:59 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> As the number of dependencies between packages get ever higher, it 
>> becomes more and more difficult to compile packages and the 
>> dependence on binary precompiled packages is increased. However 
>> binary packages are unsuitable for some situations.  We really need 
>> to follow the lead of some of the Linux groups and have -runtime 
>> and -devel versions of packages, OR  we what woudlbe smarter, woudl 
>> be to have several "sub manifests" to allow unpacking in different 
>> environments.
>>
>>
>> A simple example:   libxml2
>>
>> This package installs include files and libraries and dicumentation 
>> etc.
>>
>> yet if I build an appliance , I want it to only install a singe file.
>>
>> /usr/local/lib/libxml2.so.2
>>
>>
>> The presence of this file will satisfy any runtime dependencies of 
>> packages that require it.
>>
>> Unfortunately there is no way to install just this file, and still 
>> report that we have the package loaded, so
>>
>> pkg will always try to reinstall it leading to a huge mess.
>>
>> My current scheme is to unpack all packages into a larger staging 
>> area, and *manually* (scripted) copy out only the files I need, and 
>> then copy the pkg database, so that when run on the running 
>> appliance, pkg THINKS all the packages are loaded on the appliance, 
>> even though only the runtime files are installed. This is what we 
>> in the industry call "a hack"  :-) It is also not robust in the 
>> face of changing pkg versions.
>>
>> It would be a lot better it pkg knew it was being asked to install 
>> only the runtime set, and coudl accurately  store this information 
>> in its database, allowing it to satisfy the needs of other packages 
>> that need that dependnency only in a runtime manner.
>>
>> Is any of this possible at the moment?
>>
>> suggestions from the ports/pkg community are appreciated..
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
>> "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>
>