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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to