Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:29:45 +0200
From:      Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org, Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more
Message-ID:  <20131004132945.GL72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <524EB31C.6060102@quip.cz>
References:  <20131003084814.GB99713@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524D6059.2000700@FreeBSD.org> <524DD120.4000701@freebsd.org> <20131003203501.GA1371@medusa.sysfault.org> <CAGwOe2Ye2MLz3QpyMW3wyN9ew%2BiNnTETS1oOi_%2B8dPehUcWa0w@mail.gmail.com> <20131004061833.GA1367@medusa.sysfault.org> <20131004063259.GC72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524E679B.9010103@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20131004070503.GF72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <524EB31C.6060102@quip.cz>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--Bzq2cJcN05fcPrs+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:22:52PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:00:43AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> >> On 04/10/2013 07:32, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >>> On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, t=
hat also
> >>> makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they=
 both
> >>> provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 versi=
on at
> >>> runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building locall=
y, and
> >>> that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Wh=
y having
> >>> .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI si=
ze, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. S=
hould we be
> >>> nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is t=
he question
> >>> to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not.
> >>
> >> Can't we have the best of both worlds?
> >>
> >> We're already planning on creating sub-packages for eg. docs and
> >> examples.  The default will be to install docs etc. sub-packages
> >> automatically unless the user opts out in some way.  I imagine there
> >> will be a global switch somewhere -- in pkg.conf or similar[*].
> >>
> >> Couldn't we work devel packages in the same way? Install by default
> >> alongside the main package unless explicitly requested not to.
> >>
> >> I think having the capability to selectively install parts of packages
> >> like this is important and useful functionality and something that will
> >> be indispensible for eg. embedded platforms.  But not an option that t=
he
> >> vast majority of ordinary users will need to exercise.
> >>
> >> 	Cheers,
> >>
> >> 	Matthew
> >>
> >> [*] The precise mechanism for choosing which sub-package bits to insta=
ll
> >> has not yet been written.  If anyone has any bright ideas about how th=
is
> >> should all work, then I'd be interested to hear them.
> >>
> >
> > That is another possiblity, I do prefer Erwin's idea about the -full, b=
ut this
> > also makes a lot of sense.
>=20
> I really like the current state with full packages. Disk space is cheap,=
=20
> full packages is default for whole FreeBSD existence and it is easy to=20
> maintain the system with it. If I want portA and portB, I just install=20
> portA and portB and if I want to see installed ports, I see two ports=20
> installed and not a bunch of lines like:
> portA-bin
> portA-doc
> portA-dev
> portB-bin
> portB-doc
> portB-dev
>=20
> When I need to update those ports, I will update two ports, not six or=20
> more ports / sub ports.
>=20
> Embedded systems are corner case, where many things need to be tweaked=20
> anyway.
>=20
> So I like the idea of default full packages with possibility to=20
> optionally select and install sub parts for those who really need the=20
> fine grained list of packages.

That is because you keep thinking you have to build those ports yourself, w=
e are
here speaking of binary packages.

regards,
Bapt

--Bzq2cJcN05fcPrs+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlJOwskACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExmIQCbBOZ6rj302chfnrCXxplHk89v
CBEAnjV1UWGJtfUNh1B92VIdR8kZgcSI
=9Uki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Bzq2cJcN05fcPrs+--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131004132945.GL72453>