Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:56:11 +0200
From:      Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
To:        Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: alternative options for ports
Message-ID:  <200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <20041015141551.GA80394@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
References:  <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <200410151404.i9FE4Jrc006244@peedub.jennejohn.org> <20041015141551.GA80394@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1464924.GOFH3xG3ic
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Friday 15 October 2004 16:15, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 04:04:19PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> > Michael Nottebrock writes:
> > > This is exactly why we need more fine-grained (slave-)-ports that
> > > translate features into binary packages which can be added and removed
> > > easily. If a user asks "How can I get this or that feature in $packag=
e"
> > > and the answer is "you need install the ports-collection, set some
> > > option and then recompile the port" it means that the port is flawed
> > > and a slave-port which translates the feature into a binary package is
> > > needed.
> >
> > You're joking, right? I certainly am not prepared or willing to make a
> > slave port for every twinkie option in the ports which I maintain!=20

Not at all. If there is a feature that is of potential interest for a great=
=20
number of users and is not enabled by default in the package, you should ve=
ry=20
seriously consider making a packagable port for it.


>
> Especially when you consider ports like multimedia/mplayer which has
> over 20 different options that are independent of each other.  If you
> want a slave-port for each (valid) combination of options, you would
> need over 2^20 different slave ports.  Adding a million extra
> slave-ports just to make sure that nobody ever needs to recompile a
> port instead of using a binary package is just not realistic.

Look at Debian and tell me again it's not realistic. And I'm not suggesting=
=20
going as far as Debian does.

> Personally I tend to think there are too many slave-ports already which
> just take up a lot of space in the ports-tree and make updating the
> ports-tree go slower, but then I almost never use binary packages but
> build everything from source. (I.e. I would probably barely notice if
> all binary packages suddenly disappeared never to return.)

I realise that there is a fraction of ports users which don't care about=20
packages at all (and could be using gentoo just as well), but they are not=
=20
the primary target audience of ports, as I pointed out before.

=2D-=20
   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi@freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org

--nextPart1464924.GOFH3xG3ic
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.9.10 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBBcCtfXhc68WspdLARAqj+AJ9oIh3/ztW7An9gb6tx3gLTz1qQfACfX7Ij
Exa33OxdpGRw4YTjJchXPfY=
=1D1J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1464924.GOFH3xG3ic--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410152156.16113.michaelnottebrock>