On 03/04/16 13:20, Glen Barber wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:02:55PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> <<On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 01:09:49 +0000, Glen Barber <[email protected]> said: >> >>>> I'm not convinced that it makes >>>> much sense to have all the different -lib32-* variants given the >>>> normal use case is runtime-only. >> >>> For those who have no need for lib32 stuff, we do not want to enforce >>> its existence. >> >> You may have missed my point: I was suggesting that the lib32 stuff be >> packed into fewer packages, because the places where it is needed are >> less likely to want fine-grained selection. So just having a single >> package with all the "runtime" packages would be closer to what most >> people needed (and likewise for the "development" etc. libraries which >> are almost never useful). >> > > You're right, I did miss your point. > > I see what you mean now. It's not impossible to do, but will require > a bit of tweaking to the script that generates the metadata files. > > Thank you for the suggestion. > > Glen >
During BSDCan 2015, bapt@ said that there would be meta-packages for this: http://www.bsdcan.org/2015/schedule/attachments/321_packaging-base.pdf It would satisfy this type of use with: # pkg remove FreeBSD-lib32 <-- removes meta-package # pkg autoremove <-- removes dependencies Then there can be tweaking with "pkg set -A ..." for these that want a specific library gone or present. - Nikolai Lifanov _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkgbase To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
