Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
[...]
Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs
30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (for example, WITHOUT_ACCT not only
don't build accton/lastcomm/sa but also cut off accaunting code from
kernel for space saving and perforamce).
Packaging individual utilities is not useless, depending on who you ask.
One of the first replies I received when starting separating userland
utilities into separate packages was further splitting rwho(1) and
rwhod(8) into different packages, the use case being not necessarily
needing (or wanting) the rwho(1) utility on systems where rwhod(8) runs.
I didn't tried pkg base yet but I read posts on mailinglist. I
understand the need of separating and splitting on the one side and I
understand the fear of too long list of packages when one need to do
some maintenance (update or upgrade). So one idea come to my mind - what
about some meta-packages like "utilities, kernel, libs32, debug" hiding
all details about real packages if there are some env variable or
command line switch turned on?
Meta-packages is used in current ports for things like PHP extensions.
These ports meta-packages are not hiding real packages so this can be
improved for base packages.
It is just a quick idea how to satisfy both sides ;)
Miroslav Lachman
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
