From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 8 12:31:26 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C1F919 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:31:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A2A2128 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:31:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:605f:ffa4:8163:6ff3]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 686984AC0A; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 16:31:25 +0400 (MSK) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 16:31:22 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org Organization: FreeBSD Project X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <462076727.20140608163122@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: Matthieu Volat Subject: Re: Splitting devel/subversion into SEVERAL ports -- how fine-grained do we want to see it? In-Reply-To: <20140608134142.4d4a0ae1@freedom.alkumuna.eu> References: <1438330868.20140608001618@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20140608134142.4d4a0ae1@freedom.alkumuna.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 12:31:27 -0000 Hello, Matthieu. You wrote 8 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BD=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 15:41:42: MV> Holy... MV> Is this Debian now? How about 14 packages to have granularity over what MV> sub-library needed, and 23 others for each svn* command? And don't forg= et headers. MV> An aspect of ports I liked was it followed/respected the upstream MV> packaging mindset, instead of going for artificial repackaging like MV> linux distros. This minigame of cutting other people works in tiny MV> atomics bits so I have to figure what is missing at runtime is tiresome. MV> If this is a binary/options issue, I'd rather see an effort in MV> providing a system able to allow using globally packages with local MV> build when desired options differs, and the reverse (build everything MV> except a list of stuff where binary is prefered). With pkgng in play, I get more and more requests from people, who want to use only binary packages. And when such vital (for many) features as mod_dav_svn and (not so vital, but desirable) DE integration is non-default options of single port, it could not be done. BTW, nobody objects against separated language bindings, especially Java ones :) Really, I get requests to have "mod_dav_svn" package at least twice a mon= th for all time subversion port exists. But, yes, maybe separation to libraries and binaries is too much, and I need only extract apache-related stuff and DE-related stuff. --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov