On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > tijl@ spotted an interesting point, distinfo and pkg-descr files files > convenient are taking a lot of space for "free", we can reduce the size of the > while ports tree by a factor 2 by simply merging them into one of the other > files (Makefile and/or pkg-plist) from my testing it really devides > significantly the size of the tree. > > Problem is how to merge them if we want to. > > What we do not want to loose: > - Easyness of parsing distinfo > - Easyness to get informations about the description > > so far I have not been able to figure out a user friendly way > > Ideas I got so far only concerns pkg-descr: > Adding an entry in the Makefile for the WWW: > WWW= bla > or an entry in the plist: @www http... > > for the description the Makefile is not suitable as multi line entry in > Makefiles are painful > Maybe a new keyword: > @descr <<EOD > mydesc > in > multiline > EOD > > which could easily be added to the plist parser in pkg. But I'm do not find > that > very friendly in particular for make(1) to extract the data. > > Concerning the distinfo I have no idea. > > so this mail is a call of ideas :), if nothing nice ideas is found we will > just > do nothing here :) > > regards, > Bapt
At first I liked the idea, since I was wondering on my own if pkg-descr and distinfo couldnt be simply part of the Makefile. In vast majority of cases that would look good and wouldnt introduce too much content into existing Makefiles. There are ports like www/nginx or www/tengine that have enourmous distinfo files with number of entries that would ruin readability of their Makefiles, but so far I havent seen too many of these so I suppose they'd be the liveable drawbacks of new approach. However, after reading this discussion and some more tinkering about the idea I changed my mind - if the goal of current pkg&ports activities is to make the pkg the default way of installing packages and 'deprecate' ports when that happens, then the amount of work and the risk of breaking things by doing this ports improvement outweights its benefits. At this point I'd much rather like us to concentrate on making pkg a perfect replacement (I am mostly thinking about being able to package base for stripped down FreeBSD builds and pkg 'flavours' that would allow me install packages with custom options, like ports) and hold off making any changes to ports until we can safely state that 'pkg is the way to go for 99% of FreeBSD users and ports are for that 1% of package builders, nerds, tinkerers' etc., unless we simply cant move forward without some change. And just to be sure, I am not against improving ports, but rather about making better choice of where to put our limited resources - I am supper happy to get back to this discussion once we can replace ports with pkg :) Kind regards, Bartek Rutkowski _______________________________________________ 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"