Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 01:27:43 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: "Vlad K." <vlad-fbsd@acheronmedia.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: harder and harder to avoid pkg Message-ID: <0feda216-98b9-fa26-c34f-237b73debb38@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <ff4a1e93a21ce0f599ed5ca7fe0a9a5d@acheronmedia.com> References: <638fe078-80db-2492-90be-f1280eb8d445@freebsd.org> <ff4a1e93a21ce0f599ed5ca7fe0a9a5d@acheronmedia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/10/2016 1:13 AM, Vlad K. wrote: > On 2016-10-11 20:59, Julian Elischer wrote: >> are unsuitable for some situations. We really need to follow the lead >> of some of the Linux groups and have -runtime and -devel versions of >> packages, OR we what woudlbe smarter, woudl be to have several "sub >> manifests" to allow unpacking in different environments. > > Is as adding a "HEADERS" or whatever you want to call the option to > ports, a solution? Like we have DOC for documentation, an option > that could be PLIST sub'd and switch installation of > include/whatever.h and friends? what I really need is a RUNTIME option that produces a package with only those files needed to satisfy external run-time depdencies, or the actual demands of the user itself. However since those files are all in the regular package, It'd make sense to just apply the regular package to some filter that only allowed those files to be extracted. For many packages the whole output would be a single file. (This would be true for any package that produces a single .so such as libjpeg or libtiff etc. ). The pkg database would however report the package being installed, thus satisfying other packages that look in the database for dependencies. Giving it another name (e.g. foo-runtime-3.2 ) would make the dependencies not match it. > > Yes it's a ton of work requiring to go through many ports, but > looking at a random sample, it could be scripted and manual labor > reduced. > > To me something like this sounds very much consistent what other > options, like DOC and MANPAGES, already do. And with individual > options you don't presume package roles like -dev or -runtime or > -whatever and you can combine as you want them. > > And eventually if, hopefully when, package variants are implemented, > maybe the official pkg repo can include all the variants, but then, > I think, that's only a matter of logistics and resource available to > build all those combinations and store them. But the basic mechanism > for it should be a port option, imho. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0feda216-98b9-fa26-c34f-237b73debb38>