-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/06/2013 07:21 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Ulrich Spörlein <u...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 2013/10/4 Bryan Drewery <br...@shatow.net>:
>>> 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.
>>
>> -1 for the split, as it will not fix anybody's problem.
>>
>> On regular machines, disk space is cheap and having to install more packages
>> is just annoying
>> to users. Think of the time wasted that people are told to apt-get
>> libfoo-dev before they can
>> build anything from github, or similar.
>>
>> If you actually *are* space constricted on your tiny embedded machine, what
>> the fuck are you
>> doing with the sqlite database and all the metadata about ports/packages
>> anyway? Just rm
>> /usr/include and /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man, etc. when building your
>> disk image. But you
>> are doing that already anyway, so this solves no actual problem for you.
>>
>> My two cents Uli
>
> I also don't see why we need to optimize our packages for an embedded
> environment that is
> usually very customized. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide some proper
> port / packaging
> options/flags that help to optimize size of the packages without touching
> header files? People
> could use that flags and poudriere to build their packages together with all
> their other
> compiler flags and cpu optimisations.
>
+1
As far as I can see Daniel Nebdal's approach ("WITH_DEV_FILES" flag, and
defaulting to "yes")
sounds promising.
Pascal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=qm+q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
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"
