On Sat, 14 May 2011, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> Only tentatively remove $DATADIR/wine upon deinstallation to allow for >> the forthcoming wine-gecko port. [1] > I've read your reasoning in the PR about the separate gecko-enabled > port, and while I am generally not very happy about the idea of > sub-ports, I have to say that it makes sense when slave or sibling ports > carry substantial amount of extra functionality, heavy dependencies, or > features that are useful to minority of users.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the FreeBSD Ports Collection is that, unlike RPM or DEB based systems, one port cannot easily create a set of complementary binary packages. A richer package system nicely allows users to select options also for binary packages, not just ports, and combined with proper dependencies and concepts like "recommends" and "provides" is both safe and flexible. (Think of -devel and -doc packages as general concepts supported by that.) Is anyone looking into this for FreeBSD? > In case of wine-gecko, however, making separate port I think is overkill. > It's just a single .cab file, worth couple of megs, and most users want > it anyways. I believe OPTION (default to on) is better suited and just > will DTRT here. It increases the size of the package by two thirds. AdnuUnless you view web pages under Wine, this won't be needed, so game players, viewers of medical applications,... probably won't leverage it. In comparison, if you look at Debian or openSUSE, for example, Wine there is spread over some twenty (sub)packages. Gerald _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
