Re: MariaDB 10.1 includes sqlite3??
> On 13 Feb, 2017, at 8:23, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > > [Default] On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:02:13 +0100, Christian Ullrich > wrote: > >> * scratch65...@att.net wrote: >> >>> Does anyone have a clue as to why sqlite3 is now being installed >>> with MariaDB 10.1? The mariadb site doesn't mention it, as far >> >> Because you have set your ports options in such a way that the MariaDB >> port depends on something (that depends on something)* that in turn >> depends on SQLite. databases/mariadb101-server itself does not have, nor >> can it be configured to have, a dependency on databases/sqlite3. >> >> Installing this one port brings in 41 more as dependencies (on my system >> as of right now), so there are plenty of chances for something to use >> SQLite. >> >> Also, since your question is not clear on whether you mean SQLite is >> installed as part of the port or separately, the port does not install >> any files that might indicate the presence of an internal copy of SQLite. > > I've never set ports options at all. I just do generic installs, > whenever I'm forced to use ports rather than packages. > > MariaDB 10.1 was and should still be a standalone installand with > no dependencies at all. So to see config-recursive pop up config > screens for sqlite, tcl, and other stuff that has no logical > connection to MariaDB at all is disconcerting to say the least. Unfortunately, "What scratch65535 wishes the dependencies would be" isn't the determining factor in the dependency list. MariaDB requires libxml2. libxml2 requires libiconv, gmake, pkgconf, and a few others. MariaDB builds with cmake. cmake requires python, libexecinfo, and libarchive, the latter requires liblz4 and liblzo2. Every one of those dependencies has dependencies, and many of THOSE have dependencies. You can minimize the number of dependencies by running make config. But you acknowledge that you already knew this, and that merely seeing config dialogues is offensive to you. Those config dialogues exist so that you can reduce dependencies. By default, ports in general enable all the features that the average person MIGHT want. If you don't need them, turn them off. This is getting tiresome, scratch65535. You're complaining constantly, which is fine: FreeBSD gets better when people talk about problems they encounter. But then you keep refusing to solve them when you're told how, and that isn't fine. What did you think the response to "MariaDB has too many dependencies, but I don't want to turn them off myself" was going to be? # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: MariaDB 10.1 includes sqlite3??
[Default] On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:02:13 +0100, Christian Ullrich wrote: >* scratch65...@att.net wrote: > >> Does anyone have a clue as to why sqlite3 is now being installed >> with MariaDB 10.1? The mariadb site doesn't mention it, as far > >Because you have set your ports options in such a way that the MariaDB >port depends on something (that depends on something)* that in turn >depends on SQLite. databases/mariadb101-server itself does not have, nor >can it be configured to have, a dependency on databases/sqlite3. > >Installing this one port brings in 41 more as dependencies (on my system >as of right now), so there are plenty of chances for something to use >SQLite. > >Also, since your question is not clear on whether you mean SQLite is >installed as part of the port or separately, the port does not install >any files that might indicate the presence of an internal copy of SQLite. I've never set ports options at all. I just do generic installs, whenever I'm forced to use ports rather than packages. MariaDB 10.1 was and should still be a standalone installand with no dependencies at all. So to see config-recursive pop up config screens for sqlite, tcl, and other stuff that has no logical connection to MariaDB at all is disconcerting to say the least. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: MariaDB 10.1 includes sqlite3??
* scratch65...@att.net wrote: Does anyone have a clue as to why sqlite3 is now being installed with MariaDB 10.1? The mariadb site doesn't mention it, as far Because you have set your ports options in such a way that the MariaDB port depends on something (that depends on something)* that in turn depends on SQLite. databases/mariadb101-server itself does not have, nor can it be configured to have, a dependency on databases/sqlite3. Installing this one port brings in 41 more as dependencies (on my system as of right now), so there are plenty of chances for something to use SQLite. Also, since your question is not clear on whether you mean SQLite is installed as part of the port or separately, the port does not install any files that might indicate the presence of an internal copy of SQLite. -- Christian ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
MariaDB 10.1 includes sqlite3??
Does anyone have a clue as to why sqlite3 is now being installed with MariaDB 10.1? The mariadb site doesn't mention it, as far as I can tell, and if anything qualifies as coals-to-Newcastle, this combination does. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
