Stefan Esser se at freebsd.org
Wed Sep 27 12:18:12 UTC 2017

Am 27.09.17 um 13:52 schrieb Julian Elischer:
> On 27/9/17 4:20 pm, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Before this gets too far down the road I would like to suggest that we
> quickly formalise some nomenclature
> or we will have 200 different ideas as to how to do the same thing;
> I would like to propose the following possible "examples of official"
> flavours:
> -nodocs         ..  nearly every port has a DOCS option..  a way to
> automatically turn it off globally and generate said pkgs would be good.
> -minimal ..  smallest possible feature set.. probably used just to
> satisfy some stupid dependency.
> -kitchensink    ..  speaks for itself .. options lit up like a christmas
> tree
> -runtime        ..  no .a files, include files, development
> documentation or sources ..
>                     might only contain a single libxx.so.N file, or a
> single binary executable.

No, these are no good examples for flavours, as I understand them ...

These are possible typical sub-package categories, or rather you could
remove the DOCS from the base port, but offer a sub-package for them.

I'd rather think that NO-X11 might become a typical flavour, or the
dependency on a particular crypto library (e.g. openssl vs. libressl).

Regards, STefan

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list