On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:00AM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote: > Matthew Seaman <[email protected]>: > > > On 26/06/2012 08:26, Marcus von Appen wrote: > >>>> 1. Ports are not modular > > > >>> What do you mean by modular? if you are speaking about subpackages it > >>> is coming, > >>> but it takes time > > > >> I hope, we are not talking about some Debian-like approach here (foo-bin, > >> foo-dev, foo-doc, ....). > > > > Actually, yes -- that's pretty much exactly what we're talking about > > here. Why do you feel subpackages would be a bad thing? > > Because it makes installing ports more complex, causes maintainers to rip > upstream installation routines apart, and burdens users with additional tasks > to perform for what particular benefit (except saving some disk space)? > > If I want to do some development the Debian way, I would need to do the > following: > > - install foo-bin (if it ships with binaries) > - install foo-lib (libraries, etc.) > - install foo-dev (headers, etc.) > - install foo-doc (API docs) > > With the ports I am currently doing: > > - install foo >
yes but you do not allow to install 2 packages one depending on mysql51 and one depending on mysql55, there will be conflicts on dependency just because of developpement files, the runtime can be made not to conflict. I trust maintainers to no abuse package splitting and do it when it make sense. In the case you give I would probably split the package that way: foo (everything needed in runtime: bin + libraries) foo-dev (everything needed for developper: headers, static libraries, pkg-config stuff, libtool stuff, API docs) foo-docs (all user documentation about the runtime) of course there will be no rule on how to split packages, just common sense. regards, Bapt
pgpmJ8yull6vD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
