Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:05:33 -0800 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: Bartek Rutkowski <robak@freebsd.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" <ports@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Reducing the size of the ports tree (brainstorm v2) Message-ID: <855fea3e3d39cea6731300c83230c03d@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <CAHcXP%2Bfe94NRBEpnYGy9Amuv_72cX==8UMK6m1pdgtv=tY9vrw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20141031185621.GC15967@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAHcXP%2Bfx8BF-OfJ%2B5gDDBPRncoKMssYyHQXeOtNkR4ToNLyPJg@mail.gmail.com> <6f0a3ce6d5370d40e4ea888c7eaf6dec@ultimatedns.net>, <CAHcXP%2Bfe94NRBEpnYGy9Amuv_72cX==8UMK6m1pdgtv=tY9vrw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 19:32:25 +0100 Bartek Rutkowski <robak@freebsd.org> wrote > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Chris H <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 09:08:28 +0000 Bartek Rutkowski <robak@freebsd.org> > > wrote > > >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> > >> wrote: > Hi all, > >> > > >> > tijl@ spotted an interesting point, distinfo and pkg-descr files files > >> > convenient are taking a lot of space for "free", we can reduce the size > >> > of the while ports tree by a factor 2 by simply merging them into one of > >> > the other files (Makefile and/or pkg-plist) from my testing it really > >> > devides significantly the size of the tree. > >> > > >> > Problem is how to merge them if we want to. > >> > > >> > What we do not want to loose: > >> > - Easyness of parsing distinfo > >> > - Easyness to get informations about the description > >> > > >> > so far I have not been able to figure out a user friendly way > >> > > >> > Ideas I got so far only concerns pkg-descr: > >> > Adding an entry in the Makefile for the WWW: > >> > WWW= bla > >> > or an entry in the plist: @www http... > >> > > >> > for the description the Makefile is not suitable as multi line entry in > >> > Makefiles are painful > >> > Maybe a new keyword: > >> > @descr <<EOD > >> > mydesc > >> > in > >> > multiline > >> > EOD > >> > > >> > which could easily be added to the plist parser in pkg. But I'm do not > >> > find that very friendly in particular for make(1) to extract the data. > >> > > >> > Concerning the distinfo I have no idea. > >> > > >> > so this mail is a call of ideas :), if nothing nice ideas is found we > >> > will just do nothing here :) > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > Bapt > >> > >> At first I liked the idea, since I was wondering on my own if > >> pkg-descr and distinfo couldnt be simply part of the Makefile. In vast > >> majority of cases that would look good and wouldnt introduce too much > >> content into existing Makefiles. There are ports like www/nginx or > >> www/tengine that have enourmous distinfo files with number of entries > >> that would ruin readability of their Makefiles, but so far I havent > >> seen too many of these so I suppose they'd be the liveable drawbacks > >> of new approach. > >> > >> However, after reading this discussion and some more tinkering about > >> the idea I changed my mind - if the goal of current pkg&ports > >> activities is to make the pkg the default way of installing packages > >> and 'deprecate' ports when that happens, > > Aak! Seriously?! Eliminate ports? I _sincerely_ hope that isn't the > > intended result of the introduction of pkg(8). That would be a > > _horrible_ decision. For more reasons than I can list in a mailing > > list reply. Honestly. If this is true, has any real thought gone into > > the potential consequences resulting from this? We're not just talking > > about the affects on "geeks", and "hobbyists" here. We're talking about > > Shops, and Businesses that create specific products, for specific needs, > > and chose *BSD for what at least _was_ the freedom, and amount of > > _choices_ it offered. Making it, by comparison, more _flexible_ than > > it's alternatives. You'll effectively eliminate that market, traveling > > in the direction you appear to be going. > > If what I understand you to be saying is true. It appears FreeBSD is > > simply looking to parrot Linux, and relinquish "The power to serve". > > In exchange for competing for a strictly Desktop market. If true. > > This will mark a very dark year in history, for FreeBSD. > > > > Sincerely, > > Disappointed. > Thank you for the reply, and clarification, Bartek. > I think we've a little misunderstanding here. At no point I've said > nor heard that ports are about to be eliminated. I did hovewer heard > that the goal is to deprecate them, as in, encourage users to move to > pkg entirely, once pkg is a viable ports replacement, and to make that > a default way to install/maintain software on FreeBSD. At the end, it > would be very hard to 'eliminate' ports, since we still have to > generate the packages with something, dont we? ;) One wouldn't think so. But I've been surprised before. :) > Even said that, I > could be completely wrong here, misunderstood someone else and so on, > and by no means this discussion is a statement of what is going on to > happen with ports/pkg oficially, so, to quote D. Adams: DON'T PANIC. > :) Well. So could I. Hopefully I am. :) Thanks again, for the thoughtful reply, Bartek. --Chris > > Kind regards, > Bartek Rutkowski > > > > >> then the amount of work and > >> the risk of breaking things by doing this ports improvement outweights > >> its benefits. At this point I'd much rather like us to concentrate on > >> making pkg a perfect replacement (I am mostly thinking about being > >> able to package base for stripped down FreeBSD builds and pkg > >> 'flavours' that would allow me install packages with custom options, > >> like ports) and hold off making any changes to ports until we can > >> safely state that 'pkg is the way to go for 99% of FreeBSD users and > >> ports are for that 1% of package builders, nerds, tinkerers' etc., > >> unless we simply cant move forward without some change. And just to be > >> sure, I am not against improving ports, but rather about making better > >> choice of where to put our limited resources - I am supper happy to > >> get back to this discussion once we can replace ports with pkg :) > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Bartek Rutkowski > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://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?855fea3e3d39cea6731300c83230c03d>