On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Matthieu.
You wrote 8 ???? 2014 ?., 15:41:42:
MV> Holy...
MV> Is this Debian now? How about 14 packages to have granularity over what
MV> sub-library needed, and 23 others for each svn* command? And don't forget
headers.
MV> An aspect of ports I liked was it followed/respected the upstream
MV> packaging mindset, instead of going for artificial repackaging like
MV> linux distros. This minigame of cutting other people works in tiny
MV> atomics bits so I have to figure what is missing at runtime is tiresome.
MV> If this is a binary/options issue, I'd rather see an effort in
MV> providing a system able to allow using globally packages with local
MV> build when desired options differs, and the reverse (build everything
MV> except a list of stuff where binary is prefered).
With pkgng in play, I get more and more requests from people, who want to
use only binary packages. And when such vital (for many) features as
mod_dav_svn and (not so vital, but desirable) DE integration is non-default
options of single port, it could not be done.
BTW, nobody objects against separated language bindings, especially Java
ones :)
Really, I get requests to have "mod_dav_svn" package at least twice a month
for all time subversion port exists. But, yes, maybe separation to
libraries and binaries is too much, and I need only extract apache-related
stuff and DE-related stuff.
This is less work and complication, and sounds like it will be enough to
satisfy people. Later, if a split into more slave ports is needed, it
can be done then.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
