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 > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
