On 14/10/2016 09:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 13/10/2016 10:33 AM, RW via freebsd-ports wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:59:47 -0700
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
A simple example: libxml2
This package installs include files and libraries and dicumentation
yet if I build an appliance , I want it to only install a singe file.
What practical problem does installing the include files and man pages
I have to delete them from the appliance I'm building up.
So I need to get the manifest, remove the files I want from it, and
delete every other file mentioned.
This is an appliance class machine. It has 2G of storage and that has
to include 2 copies for the OS so we can ping-pong for upgrades.
I can get > 2GB CPU cache per system (spread over 8+ sockets) these
days. Is it really reasonable to expect port maintainers to take up the
work and classify their maintained ports for you to save you an
additional 2GB of cheap flash storage? At a certain scale those
trade-offs might make sense for you, but I suspect most FreeBSD port
maintainers and FreeBSD users don't mind a few 100 kB of documentation
and headers on their systems. Aren't there easier solutions which don't
require a lot of manual work?
* Documentation and source code compresses well. Can you use a
read-only lzma or gzip compressed filesystem with GEOM uncompress?
* Can you use snapshots (and rerooting) to rollback failed updates
instead of keeping two full copies around?
-- Jan Bramkamp
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"