Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 13:18:19 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <20131005111819.GA77704@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <524FE297.3030705@quip.cz> References: <524DD120.4000701@freebsd.org> <20131003203501.GA1371@medusa.sysfault.org> <CAGwOe2Ye2MLz3QpyMW3wyN9ew%2BiNnTETS1oOi_%2B8dPehUcWa0w@mail.gmail.com> <20131004061833.GA1367@medusa.sysfault.org> <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524E679B.9010103@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20131004070503.GF72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524EB31C.6060102@quip.cz> <20131004132945.GL72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524FE297.3030705@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:57:43AM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >=20 >=20 > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:22:52PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:00:43AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >>>> On 04/10/2013 07:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>>>> On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems,= that also > >>>>> makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because th= ey both > >>>>> provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 ver= sion at > >>>>> runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building loca= lly, and > >>>>> that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. = Why having > >>>>> .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI = size, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction.= Should we be > >>>>> nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is= the question > >>>>> to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. > >>>> > >>>> Can't we have the best of both worlds? > >>>> > >>>> We're already planning on creating sub-packages for eg. docs and > >>>> examples. The default will be to install docs etc. sub-packages > >>>> automatically unless the user opts out in some way. I imagine there > >>>> will be a global switch somewhere -- in pkg.conf or similar[*]. > >>>> > >>>> Couldn't we work devel packages in the same way? Install by default > >>>> alongside the main package unless explicitly requested not to. > >>>> > >>>> I think having the capability to selectively install parts of packag= es > >>>> like this is important and useful functionality and something that w= ill > >>>> be indispensible for eg. embedded platforms. But not an option that= the > >>>> vast majority of ordinary users will need to exercise. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Matthew > >>>> > >>>> [*] The precise mechanism for choosing which sub-package bits to ins= tall > >>>> has not yet been written. If anyone has any bright ideas about how = this > >>>> should all work, then I'd be interested to hear them. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That is another possiblity, I do prefer Erwin's idea about the -full,= but this > >>> also makes a lot of sense. > >> > >> I really like the current state with full packages. Disk space is chea= p, > >> full packages is default for whole FreeBSD existence and it is easy to > >> maintain the system with it. If I want portA and portB, I just install > >> portA and portB and if I want to see installed ports, I see two ports > >> installed and not a bunch of lines like: > >> portA-bin > >> portA-doc > >> portA-dev > >> portB-bin > >> portB-doc > >> portB-dev > >> > >> When I need to update those ports, I will update two ports, not six or > >> more ports / sub ports. > >> > >> Embedded systems are corner case, where many things need to be tweaked > >> anyway. > >> > >> So I like the idea of default full packages with possibility to > >> optionally select and install sub parts for those who really need the > >> fine grained list of packages. > > > > That is because you keep thinking you have to build those ports yoursel= f, we are > > here speaking of binary packages. >=20 > I don't think it's about building ports. It's about the list of what I=20 > need to have installed and maintained on our systems. And with this=20 > split to more packages, then the list will grow and tracking of changes= =20 > and dependencies will become hell like on Linux distributions. >=20 > Miroslav Lachman Nope still will only have to maintain the same list, the rest will still automatically be tracked, and the dependency hell we havr right know, will = be simplified, because less useless dependencies, packages will have less surf= ace for collision, pkg autoremove will keep taking care of the now unused deps, etc... regards, Bapt --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJP9XsACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzJkgCeJIGypX7w3/h6mNADZIBKrhEg dyAAnAyY8FhG/+JeChkF/cvrXI64cszp =6/3c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131005111819.GA77704>