I Can Has Packages?

[Gary Kline]

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:27:54PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:27:54 +0200
> From: Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de>
> Subject: Re: I Can Has Packages?
> To: vermaden <vermaden at interia.pl>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2)
> 
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:54:52 +0200, vermaden wrote:
> > "Polytropon" <freebsd at edvax.de>:
> > > On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:33:49 +0200, vermaden wrote:
> > > > HI,
> > > > 
> > > > OpenBSD seems to have packages for everything, even
> > > > for LAME (audio/lame), why FreeBSD can not provide
> > > > package for LAME the same way as OpenBSD does?
> > > 
> > > j00 CAN haz pakagez. =^_^=
> > > 
> > > Packages for _everything_ is impossible because of the many
> > > options that may or MAY NOT fit your needs, so things have
> > > to be set at compile time. Just imagine how many different
> > > packages you would have to host for OpenOffice!
> > > 
> > > In the past, "pkg_add -r de-openoffice" would have given
> > > you a full-featured german version of OpenOffice, even
> > > including a dictionary. Today, it's not that easy anymore.
> > 
> > The OpenBSD team serves these 'complicated' packages
> > by using *flavours* and *subpackages*, packages or their
> > parts compiled with different options, its described in the
> > OpenBSD FAQ here: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html
> > 
> > | 15.2.3 - Finding packages
> > | 
> > | (...)
> > | 
> > | You will notice that certain packages are available in a
> > | few different varieties, formally called flavors. Others
> > | are pieces of the same application which may be
> > | installed separately. They are called subpackages.
> > | This will be detailed further in Using flavors and
> > | subpackages but flavor basically means they are
> > | configured with different sets of options. Currently,
> > | many packages have flavors, for example: database
> > | support, support for systems without X, or network
> > | additions like SSL and IPv6. Every flavor of a package
> > | will have a different suffix in its package name. For
> > | detailed information about package names, please
> > | refer to packages-specs(7).
> 
> Interesting. That should work for packages with not so
> many options. Opera has, if I remember correctly, 4 options,
> resulting in tons of different dependencies; mplayer has
> more options than you can fit on one screen (while we
> assume the screen has 24 or 25 lines). It's an easy task
> to calculate for a package with n options, each can be
> set or not set, how many packages would have to be built
> and served. :-)
> 
> I just assume providing packages for every imaginable
> combination requires lots of resources. As an example
> take OpenOffice: Every language variant, then integration
> with KDE, Gnome, or none of them, and printing support
> (I think). That would be many hours of compiling, and
> lots of storage space needed (note: current _and_ older
> packages are needed, plus supported architectures).
> 
> 
> 
> > > There are also ports that draw a massive slew of dependencies.
> > > Some of them are of minor importance, like documentation that
> > > urges you to install LaTeX. If that's the default the package
> > > has been created from, installing it will bring teTeX to your
> > > system too, even if _you_ don't need it.
> > > 
> > > Also consider programs like mplayer that can have a lot of
> > > codecs. Because it's illegal in the U.S. to listen to MP3,
> > > those may not be included. :-)
> > > 
> > > Okay, you get the idea: There may apply "shipping restrictions".
> > > If I remember correctly, there has been such an issue for lame
> > > in the past, but I thought that it would have been resolved.
> > > When trying "make package", it was not possible, and there
> > > also was not package for use with pkg_add. You _had_ to compile
> > > it yourself because the terms of use told so.
> > > 
> > > The ports collections has a specific field in Makefile that
> > > gives you information about such issues:
> > > 
> > > RESTRICTED=     patent issues, see http://www.mp3licensing.com/
> > > 
> > > So if OpenBSD serves a lame package (I mean a package containing
> > > lame), you should ask them in how far they have an agreement that
> > > allows them to do so, in comparison to what patent issues prohibit
> > > doing the same on FreeBSD.
> > 
> > The OpenBSD port from here: http://openports.se/audio/lame
> > 
> > Has its description of LAME as a *educational* tool, maybe that is
> > the reason why they provide package for LAME:
> > 
> > | LAME is an educational tool to be used for learning about MP3
> > | encoding.  The goal of the LAME project is to improve the psycho
> > | acoustics, quality and speed of MP3 encoding.
> > 
> > My buddy has sent email to OpenBSD LAME port maintainer with
> > question why they can distribute that without concerns, I will let
> > You know if he gets the answer.
> 
> That's really a good reason to avoid the restriction. I think
> some specific kind of agreement has to be made to have this
> declaration take effect and allow packaging the software.
> 
> There are other ports that don't have equivalents on FreeBSD.
> A good example is Java. While I think it's possible to
> package the software (the "make package" command), the
> current vendor or Java (no idea who is it today) forces
> you do manually download the sources and put them into
> /usr/ports/distfiles, requiring you to interactively
> agree with their terms of use.
> 
> 
> 
> Now keep working harder and carry a towel. =^_^=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

	All of the above argumentation is why I have decided to
	goto "the dark side."  im tired of ubuntu 12.04 chewing up 
	>> 1.30 load while doing [abs] nothing, so before the guy I
	am hiring to come over and install a new KVM, I WIll 
	likely switch to the free clone of redhat.  but at least
	linux is just about push-button to upgrade.  I spent nearly
	three months last spring to get my 7.3 up to date.  --there
	were ==still== about four ports that would not build!  
	So after 17 years, it's best wishes and im moving on.  

	years ago we [FBSD] had a sponsor of some kind.  I forget
	who, but they went belly-up or just quit on  us.  [???]
	I never was that much of a capitalist--and esp'ly not after
	three years of "consulting" until I found a REAL job.
	Nevertheless, it seems to me that having a backer would save
	us.  I guess it boils downto this:  either spent some N
	hours of work weekly in keeping this current -- (plus K 
	hours between versions).  or find a sponsor.  or buy a 
	mac.

	gary



-- 
 Gary Kline  kline at thought.org  http://www.thought.org  Public Service Unix
              Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.