Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:18:19 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: dependency explosions Message-ID: <3b3f3e28-d759-d654-24c0-97fa5683837d@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <d14d1aaf-5bdb-2e09-2892-2e32c4db0810@FreeBSD.org> References: <2df71272-7b98-ad73-650a-3ec70beb71d5@freebsd.org> <d14d1aaf-5bdb-2e09-2892-2e32c4db0810@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/10/2016 5:14 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 01/10/2016 à 04:35, Julian Elischer a écrit : >> There is a need for a "minimum" install of a lot of packages. > Some dependencies are often optional, and can be unchecked by running > make config. > >> Such a 'minimum' install should probably be the default when coming in >> as a dependency, as >> there is an increasing tendency to configure things with all the bells >> and whistles. > The bare minimum will never be the default. The default is what will > fit most people, so that they can use our packages out of the box. > I didn't say it should be the default, I said it should be an easy to request option, (without using the config screen on each of 25000 ports) e.g. setting PORTS_CONFIG_MINIMUM before making everything. Most ports and packages are installed not because people want them, but because they are forced to do so by dependencies. Giving a way to reduce the number of unrequested packages, in a simple way would be of great use to many many people
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3b3f3e28-d759-d654-24c0-97fa5683837d>