harder and harder to avoid pkg
bapt at FreeBSD.org
Fri Oct 14 09:22:55 UTC 2016
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:54:07AM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> Le 14/10/2016 à 09:34, Julian Elischer a écrit :
> > On 13/10/2016 5:42 AM, David Demelier wrote:
> >> 2016-10-12 10:04 GMT+02:00 Andrea Venturoli <ml at netfence.it>:
> >>> On 10/12/16 09:24, Matthieu Volat wrote:
> >>>> And GNU/Linuxes can be a PITA when you have to track -dev(el) packages
> >>>> (which sometimes really requires -bin, -app or whatever), or worst,
> >>>> describe
> >>>> to people how they are supposed to build your software with weird
> >>>> subpackage
> >>>> names.
> >>>> I really like that ports provides the software project as intended by
> >>>> upstream (modulo options).
> >>> Just a "me too" here!
> >> Could not agree more.
> >> Please forget that idea.
> >> I just hate having to install libfoo, libfoo-dev, libfoo-dbg,
> >> libfoo-doc, libfoo-whatever each time I need to develop on Linux.
> >> Please do not transform FreeBSD as a Linux distribution :)
> >> I love the way FreeBSD and some very sparse Linux distributions
> >> provide the packages exactly how it would be installed by hand (=
> >> vanilla).
> >> FreeBSD offers some options and very few changes for better
> >> integration but packages are provided vanilla. You want a package? You
> >> install /packagename/ nothing more, nothing less. I really would like
> >> to see simple vanilla packages for the next 10 years.
> >> The FreeBSD ports is already extremely complicated, do not make it
> >> even harder :(
> > The suggestion is not for ports, but for packages..
> > a single package could be unpacked in 'runtime only' or 'everything'
> > mode.
> > basically one package, two manifests. So no "foo-devel" or "foo-runtime"
> > just 'foo'
> It is for ports, because packages are built using ports, and ports would
> need to grow the feature.
It is imho doable in both sides.
We could imagine tagging the plist/manifest so pkg can allow a user to install
only the things tagged as runtime for exemple which would do the job. for what
Julian is asking for beside adding lots of complexity pkg(8) and adding a
nightmare in the solver.
That would "please" the people that want "hey keep the giant flat package as it
is better for dev given I don't have to install the -devel version something"
and the people wanting fine grain selection if they need to.
But on the ports side that would be a nightmare having to tag all the plist (and
this cannot be automated because there are to many corner cases.
Having the port that grows the feature would be really nice because no work
would be needed on pkg :) and that would reduce cluster package building as we
could merge qt, php etc into one port that builds multiple sub packages.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the freebsd-ports