Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:01:58 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Staging, packaging and more Message-ID: <20131004070158.GE72453@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20131004065753.GV82824@droso.dk> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7LkOrbQMr4cezO2T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? > > >=20 > > > 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 plat= form. > > >=20 > >=20 > > On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded systems, tha= t also > > makes some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they b= oth > > 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. > >=20 > > Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another direction. Sho= uld 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. > >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 I do like that idea very much, and it is easily doable with stage :) regards, Bapt --7LkOrbQMr4cezO2T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJOZ+YACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyVYwCgvk+xlMsB9T6cIxciQKJwEVqb 6OkAn17CLyOjNmXHK6zZZnIsGQjG5k19 =6WWy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7LkOrbQMr4cezO2T--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131004070158.GE72453>