[HEADUP] FLAVORS landing.

[Julian Elischer]

On 27/9/17 8:17 pm, Stefan Esser wrote:
> 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 ...
why not?

that's part of the problem here. It's not really defined..
sub packages?  flavours?  what's the difference?
It's not defined and a dozen examples would go a long way to help.
I know what I want..  that's to be able to populate my appliance 
without all the stuff I don't need.
I also have a different requirement for my application build 
environment.  There I need all the includes etc.
How I get there is still a mystery.

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
>
>