Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 16 Dec 2017 23:06:08 -0700
From:      Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>
To:        Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>
Cc:        "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Option vs. flavor?
Message-ID:  <FC78B364-3688-40D0-83D8-24025201B683@adamw.org>
In-Reply-To: <ee10fa7f-9107-1c35-8540-ff34d306865d@rawbw.com>
References:  <ee10fa7f-9107-1c35-8540-ff34d306865d@rawbw.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 15 Dec, 2017, at 18:38, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> One port is small by itself, but it semi-optionally requires 4.5GB of  
> static data installed.
>
> It is possible to download this data optionally, conditional on the port  
> option DATA_FILES which will be "off" by default, so that the users who  
> need the data will install it with DATA_FILES=on.
>
> Alternatively, it is possible to create a flavor, something like @withData.
>
>
> Should the option be preferred, or should the flavor be preferred?

Hi Yuri,

Is the port of any use without the data file? If everybody who uses the  
port needs the data file, I wouldn't make it an option at all. The  
precedent is that ports with huge data files are marked NO_PACKAGE, so  
there's no impact on the package builders. Make it non-optional, mark it as  
NO_PACKAGE, and then the port works for all users.

If, however, the port IS real-world usable without the data files, I'd turn  
the data file into a second port. That way, package people can very easily  
install the NO_BUILD slave and still install the main program by pkg.

# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
adamw@adamw.org
http://www.adamw.org




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FC78B364-3688-40D0-83D8-24025201B683>