Pascal Schmid <pas...@lechindianer.de> schrieb:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 10/06/2013 07:21 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Ulrich Spörlein <u...@freebsd.org>
>wrote:
>>> 2013/10/4 Bryan Drewery <br...@shatow.net>:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:01:58AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:57:53AM +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please no devel packages.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seconded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's wrong with devel packages?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It complicates things for developers and custom software on
>FreeBSD. The typical
>>>>>>>> situation that I see on most Linux platforms is a lot of
>confusion by people, why
>>>>>>>> their custom software XYZ does not properly build - the most
>common answer: they
>>>>>>>> forgot to install a tremendous amount of dev packages,
>containing headers, build
>>>>>>>> tools and whatnot. On FreeBSD, you can rely on the fact that if
>you installed e.g.
>>>>>>>> libGL, you can start building your own GL applications without
>the need to install
>>>>>>>> several libGL-dev, libX11-dev, ... packages first. This is
>something, which I
>>>>>>>> personally see as a big plus of the FreeBSD ports system and
>which makes FreeBSD
>>>>>>>> attractive as a development platform.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other ends, that makes the package fat for embedded
>systems, that also makes
>>>>>>> some arbitrary runtime conflicts between packages (because they
>both provide the same
>>>>>>> symlink on the .so, while we could live with 2 version at
>runtime), that leads to
>>>>>>> tons of potential issue while building locally, and that makes
>having sometime insane
>>>>>>> issues with dependency tracking. Why having .a, .la, .h etc in
>production servers? It
>>>>>>> could greatly reduce PBI size, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personnaly I do have no strong opinion in one or another
>direction. Should we be
>>>>>>> nicer with developers? with end users? with embedded world? That
>is the question to
>>>>>>> face to decide if -devel packages is where we want to go or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we chose to go down that path, at least we should chose a
>different name as we've
>>>>>> used the -devel suffix for many years for developmental versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I must agree that it is one of the things high on my list of
>things that irritate me
>>>>>> with several Linux distributions but I can see the point for for
>embedded systems as
>>>>>> well. But can't we have both? Create three packages, a default
>full package and split
>>>>>> packages of -bin, -lib, and even -doc. My first though twas to
>make the full package
>>>>>> a meta-package that would install the split packages in the
>background, but that would
>>>>>> probably be confusing for users at the end of the day, so rather
>just have it be a real
>>>>>> package.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I do like that idea very much, and it is easily doable with stage
>:)
>>>>
>>>> +1 to splitting packages for embedded usage.
>>>
>>> -1 for the split, as it will not fix anybody's problem.
>>>
>>> On regular machines, disk space is cheap and having to install more
>packages is just annoying
>>> to users. Think of the time wasted that people are told to apt-get
>libfoo-dev before they can
>>> build anything from github, or similar.
>>>
>>> If you actually *are* space constricted on your tiny embedded
>machine, what the fuck are you
>>> doing with the sqlite database and all the metadata about
>ports/packages anyway? Just rm
>>> /usr/include and /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man, etc. when building
>your disk image. But you
>>> are doing that already anyway, so this solves no actual problem for
>you.
>>>
>>> My two cents Uli
>>
>> I also don't see why we need to optimize our packages for an embedded
>environment that is
>> usually very customized. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide some
>proper port / packaging
>> options/flags that help to optimize size of the packages without
>touching header files? People
>> could use that flags and poudriere to build their packages together
>with all their other
>> compiler flags and cpu optimisations.
>>
>
>+1
>
>As far as I can see Daniel Nebdal's approach ("WITH_DEV_FILES" flag,
>and defaulting to "yes")
>sounds promising.
+1
This doesn't change things in the standard case and follows existing patterns,
so I like it, too.
Mathias
>
>Pascal
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
>iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSUZ9hAAoJEAWefonBOgAfDlUP/3117hVdZ6WhrygIGnctSb49
>V+i0SggAFxXuvFFYlkjexrWFpjMPN2H7vBtR9DVbLNwqb4En+mVj/LVY1ejS9TAQ
>gj/nKlK6HNdVQWQD8qLfzFUAzWwnSBco/rIOiGkOrHuvFSUCTV5gPehoJ+Vg8Qnz
>dyUp5SByePNpY1MGMTJZh9gKWJFtTe8DcanDBCVL65rZf/eOVPyiMwlQK+Fy2AQj
>OQgJxhkWJzvl5V9THsMGiSCzJ+9EMoC620F9WEs3MvO0Ky2zIercFJ2bDaks6CXn
>arNTsqTT1zI0sZNGNQMrnxYtQPgV3oCEAggj4ZOG0FkhmBkxWNOPUyahBUE/V8ds
>tvLvugzVzqeaIJWg3IKDNEfGGh0ZnAMhUakUHyJPDhuCLgb498uwElesmgaSvlky
>eotS4cWGVp2lquuf/xPRRl82K4ciozZi3mttRmrfoznK69p1HJbepCn9maIhFkii
>WqLTjKVkeZ778is8mw8dom/Qb8OEj+XR6Vetq7cLg4Is//zieKzSvMWm7QrW1dAI
>zohAjP+lMP5d3TEmeVqvSZhQ9ticzqGGaW4U7zxxRZ0Y/zxkBwe3cIBEpjTpnW9p
>/a0DJ3JodVBo79N2JheIqweCK9RPn8rOK5HxujnWcJ3jbQAgCxOdLd9iyN6IxOjI
>3pHI9pO++Am9ReFvL/Uy
>=qm+q
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to
>"freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
