Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:14:17 -0700 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADUP] FLAVORS landing. Message-ID: <1172fd5fe210f0416aead7a188f24cd0@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <c01a5ca4-7ec8-d271-9130-7ed6d13d1f9e@freebsd.org> References: <dcc6fa75-8325-01e9-4a86-e3bc61bb27a2@FreeBSD.org> <b964b742-389d-a4e6-0f5f-f30f976d79bd@freebsd.org> <a236f275-4cff-72d1-7d90-955a43062458@FreeBSD.org> <c7e8a348-0b17-d5e8-bf8d-e499c813f8d7@arved.at> <e7cfc564-3c59-e21d-2586-89436a3abb38@FreeBSD.org> <91d1252c-5398-dca8-f337-959fa722efc7@freebsd.org> <5f2632cd-4c7c-c1e3-d4f9-292c5cfe90a1@freebsd.org>, <c01a5ca4-7ec8-d271-9130-7ed6d13d1f9e@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:24:22 +0800 Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote > On 27/9/17 8:17 pm, Stefan Esser wrote: > > Am 27.09.17 um 13:52 schrieb Julian Elischer: > >> On 27/9/17 4:20 pm, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> > >> Before this gets too far down the road I would like to suggest that we > >> quickly formalise some nomenclature > >> or we will have 200 different ideas as to how to do the same thing; > >> > >> I would like to propose the following possible "examples of official" > >> flavours: > >> -nodocs .. nearly every port has a DOCS option.. a way to > >> automatically turn it off globally and generate said pkgs would be good. > >> -minimal .. smallest possible feature set.. probably used just to > >> satisfy some stupid dependency. > >> -kitchensink .. speaks for itself .. options lit up like a christmas > >> tree > >> -runtime .. no .a files, include files, development > >> documentation or sources .. > >> might only contain a single libxx.so.N file, or a > >> single binary executable. > > No, these are no good examples for flavours, as I understand them ... > why not? > > that's part of the problem here. It's not really defined.. > sub packages? flavours? what's the difference? > It's not defined and a dozen examples would go a long way to help. > I know what I want.. that's to be able to populate my appliance > without all the stuff I don't need. > I also have a different requirement for my application build > environment. There I need all the includes etc. > How I get there is still a mystery. If I choose licorice flavor. Do I still get to choose between red, or black. If not, I'd like to request that black be the one chosen. IOW I see your point. I'm not really sure FLAVOR(S) are ready to land, just yet. Thanks for bringing this point up, Julian. :) --Chris > > > > > These are possible typical sub-package categories, or rather you could > > remove the DOCS from the base port, but offer a sub-package for them. > > > > > > I'd rather think that NO-X11 might become a typical flavour, or the > > dependency on a particular crypto library (e.g. openssl vs. libressl). > > > > > > Regards, STefan > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1172fd5fe210f0416aead7a188f24cd0>