Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:10:49 +0200 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists@toco-domains.de> To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>, "Mikhail T." <mi+oro@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: pkg@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gem, pip et al vs. pkg Message-ID: <822149db-ba15-fa14-d5b8-530ef287bd63@toco-domains.de> In-Reply-To: <20160608005320.GQ41922@home.opsec.eu> References: <a3bc5362-660f-80d5-c64d-f439052b259f@aldan.algebra.com> <20160608005320.GQ41922@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08.06.2016 02:53, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> The ports tree has thousands of entries, which are simply thin wrappers >> around Ruby's gem or Perl's and/or Python's pip. > > Thanks again for asking the right questions. Please add go to that > list 8-} > >> Why do we need them? Obviously, it is primarily >> for other ports to be able to depend on them. But why can't we satisfy >> this need without creating a port for each such little package? > > Because right now the mechanism we use is the only one we have. > >> If a port declares: >> >> RUN_DEPENDS= /foo/:gem//bar/[:/version/] >> >> why can't the /bar/-gem (with the latest or specified version) be >> automatically installed -- and/or registered as a dependency -- without >> there being a dedicated port for it? > > We would need to mirror the language-specific dependency tracking > in the ports system. While doable, it's definitly non-trivial. Also it is not always language specific. Some rubygems for example requires other non-ruby software to be installed. This is handled by the ports very good - but if there is no such requirement a port is overhead. Also gems allow/need sometime specific versions - which is hard to track and keep right in the ports tree. Greetings, Torsten
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?822149db-ba15-fa14-d5b8-530ef287bd63>