On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:47:26AM +0200, Florent Peterschmitt wrote: > On 26.06.2012 17:21, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Baptiste Daroussin<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> 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 > > I agree. > > > >> 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. > > Disagree. We shouldn't split for that. Have you seen how many Linux > > users report when they can't compile one of application, just because > > they didn't install the *-dev? A LOT (thousands and thousands)! When > > it's A LOT then it means that it's flawed. If the upstream provide the > > split tarballs then I do not have any problem with it. > > > > Also, it will slow down the ports tree pretty bad if we do that way to > > all ports. > > > >> regards, > >> Bapt > > > Just don't make -dev package, that's really something stupid and I agree > with that. > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
Once again it will be written nowhere that you need or not to create a -dev package, just do it as a maintainer if you think it make sense in your particular case! Bapt
pgpEDfY9N0gOX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
