Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:41:46 +0200 From: Daniel Nebdal <dnebdal@gmail.com> To: Mathias Picker <Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de> Cc: Ports FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <CA%2Bt49PJ3=v2CZ7=4q-GsVSxfzrfftAU7a%2BfhVaS7p%2BGh%2BGAu%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1380892598.7413.29.camel@mp> 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> <20131004065753.GV82824@droso.dk> <20131004070158.GE72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20131004111256.GC98118@admin.xzibition.com> <1380892598.7413.29.camel@mp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Mathias Picker <Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de> wrote: > Am Freitag, den 04.10.2013, 06:12 -0500 schrieb Bryan Drewery: >> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:01:58AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:57:53AM +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: >> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Please no devel packages. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Seconded. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What's wrong with devel packages? >> > > > > >> > > > > It complicates things for developers and custom software on >> > > > > FreeBSD. The typical situation that I see on most Linux platforms is a >> > > > > lot of confusion by people, why their custom software XYZ does not >> > > > > properly build - the most common answer: they forgot to install a >> > > > > tremendous amount of dev packages, containing headers, build tools and >> > > > > whatnot. >> > > > > On FreeBSD, you can rely on the fact that if you installed e.g. libGL, >> > > > > you can start building your own GL applications without the need to >> > > > > install several libGL-dev, libX11-dev, ... packages first. >> > > > > This is something, which I personally see as a big plus of the FreeBSD >> > > > > ports system and which makes FreeBSD attractive as a development platform. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, that also >> > > > makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they both >> > > > provide the same symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 version at >> > > > runtime), that leads to tons of potential issue while building locally, and >> > > > that makes having sometime insane issues with dependency tracking. Why having >> > > > .a, .la, .h etc in production servers? It could greatly reduce PBI size, etc. >> > > > >> > > > Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. Should we be >> > > > nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That is the question >> > > > to face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not. >> > > > >> > > >> > > If we chose to go down that path, at least we should chose a different >> > > name as we've used the -devel suffix for many years for developmental >> > > versions. >> > > >> > > I must agree that it is one of the things high on my list of things that >> > > irritate me with several Linux distributions but I can see the point for >> > > for embedded systems as well. But can't we have both? Create three >> > > packages, a default full package and split packages of -bin, -lib, >> > > and even -doc. My first though twas to make the full package a >> > > meta-package that would install the split packages in the background, >> > > but that would probably be confusing for users at the end of the day, so >> > > rather just have it be a real package. >> > > >> > I do like that idea very much, and it is easily doable with stage :) >> >> +1 to splitting packages for embedded usage. > > For me, the full packages of FreeBSD where allways one big plus. I > *hate* trying to compile anything and having to (find and) blow up my > package count. Just more things to keep track of. > > Disk space is cheap, and it's getting cheaper, even on embedded systems. > Is this really the time to optimize for a special case that might even > (slowly) fade away as storage even in tiny system grows and grows? > > > Regards, Mathias > > > > >> >> > >> > regards, >> > Bapt >> >> > Given that pkgng has feature flags, it could perhaps be doable to have a "WITH_DEV_FILES" (or whatever) flag, and defaulting to "yes". The embedded people could then set it to "no" and do a poudriere bulk build (or whatever they prefer) and get a nice slim set of packages with very little extra work. Ports could build-depend on a version with the appropriate flag set, and run-depend on versions without ... so if you try to compile something, it might be possible to drag the appropriate dev-enabled package versions in automatically. Depending on how feature flags actually work, of course; I might be optimistic here. :) Also, I wouldn't bet on embedded people getting unlimited amounts of space just yet. It's weird how slowly some fields move. -- Daniel Nebdal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2Bt49PJ3=v2CZ7=4q-GsVSxfzrfftAU7a%2BfhVaS7p%2BGh%2BGAu%2BQ>