Le 14/10/2016 à 09:34, Julian Elischer a écrit : > On 13/10/2016 5:42 AM, David Demelier wrote: >> 2016-10-12 10:04 GMT+02:00 Andrea Venturoli <m...@netfence.it>: >>> On 10/12/16 09:24, Matthieu Volat wrote: >>> >>>> And GNU/Linuxes can be a PITA when you have to track -dev(el) packages >>>> (which sometimes really requires -bin, -app or whatever), or worst, >>>> describe >>>> to people how they are supposed to build your software with weird >>>> subpackage >>>> names. >>>> >>>> I really like that ports provides the software project as intended by >>>> upstream (modulo options). >>> >>> Just a "me too" here! >> Could not agree more. >> >> Please forget that idea. >> >> I just hate having to install libfoo, libfoo-dev, libfoo-dbg, >> libfoo-doc, libfoo-whatever each time I need to develop on Linux. >> Please do not transform FreeBSD as a Linux distribution :) >> >> I love the way FreeBSD and some very sparse Linux distributions >> provide the packages exactly how it would be installed by hand (= >> vanilla). >> >> FreeBSD offers some options and very few changes for better >> integration but packages are provided vanilla. You want a package? You >> install /packagename/ nothing more, nothing less. I really would like >> to see simple vanilla packages for the next 10 years. >> >> The FreeBSD ports is already extremely complicated, do not make it >> even harder :( > The suggestion is not for ports, but for packages.. > a single package could be unpacked in 'runtime only' or 'everything' > mode. > basically one package, two manifests. So no "foo-devel" or "foo-runtime" > just 'foo'
It is for ports, because packages are built using ports, and ports would need to grow the feature. -- Mathieu Arnold
Description: OpenPGP digital signature