On 12/10/2016 5:55 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 11/10/2016 19:59, Julian Elischer wrote: >> As the number of dependencies between packages get ever higher, it >> becomes more and more difficult to compile packages and the >> dependence on binary precompiled packages is increased. However >> binary packages are unsuitable for some situations. We really need >> to follow the lead of some of the Linux groups and have -runtime >> and -devel versions of packages, OR we what woudlbe smarter, >> woudl be to have several "sub manifests" to allow unpacking in >> different environments. >> >> >> A simple example: libxml2 >> >> This package installs include files and libraries and dicumentation >> etc. >> >> yet if I build an appliance , I want it to only install a singe >> file. >> >> /usr/local/lib/libxml2.so.2 >> >> >> The presence of this file will satisfy any runtime dependencies of >> packages that require it. >> >> Unfortunately there is no way to install just this file, and still >> report that we have the package loaded, so >> >> pkg will always try to reinstall it leading to a huge mess. >> >> My current scheme is to unpack all packages into a larger staging >> area, and *manually* (scripted) copy out only the files I need, and >> then copy the pkg database, so that when run on the running >> appliance, pkg THINKS all the packages are loaded on the appliance, >> even though only the runtime files are installed. This is what we >> in the industry call "a hack" :-) It is also not robust in the >> face of changing pkg versions. >> >> It would be a lot better it pkg knew it was being asked to install >> only the runtime set, and coudl accurately store this information >> in its database, allowing it to satisfy the needs of other packages >> that need that dependnency only in a runtime manner. >> >> Is any of this possible at the moment? >> >> suggestions from the ports/pkg community are appreciated.. >> >> Julian > > You are describing the 'sub-packages' concept that has been knocking > around for some time. With sub-packages you'ld divide up the result > of staging each port into various chunks:
Yep, like this: Ports framework "variants" proof-of-concept (with poudriere support) Mar 6 2016 - https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5563 > - binaries + config file samples + required data files (the core pkg > content) - shlibs - debug symbols - docs - examples - c/c++ headers > and static or profiling libs (ie. only required for compilation) - > various additional plugins etc. currently controlled by port options > > Each of these would be packaged separately and can be used > independently for resolving dependencies. Building each port would > result in as many of these sub packages as are applicable. > > Turning OPTIONS into sub-packages will also significantly reduce the > number of OPTIONS settings needed in the ports tree (I think bapt had > an estimate of about a 70% reduction but ICBW) and make the pkg > system significantly better able to handle more varied user > requirements without users having to compile their own packages. > > Unfortunately attention has been diverted while there's a lot of > work going on towards packaging base. The problem as far as ports > are concerned is producing several packages out of one port -- it's > not rocket science level of difficulty to make that change, but the > assumption of a one-to-one correspondence between ports and packages > is deeply rooted, and it's going to take a lot of work to unpick. Ports framework "variants" proof-of-concept (with poudriere support) Mar 6 2016 - https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5563 > Happily, the package sets produced for the base system are already > divided along these lines, so with a packaged base it is really very > easy to produce a stripped down and streamlined base system. > > Cheers, > > Matthew _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"