I feel like creative use of run/build-depends would work but I'm a bit tired now. Well you probably don't want any or near zero deps down a library depends path.
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:08 PM, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On 11/10/2016 5:34 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> Make a slave port with an abbreviated pkg-plist bruh. ;) > yeeess, good idea, but that won't satisfy the dependency requirements of > other packages... you need to fool other packages, and that's the hard part. > The way to do this is I think for pkg to have the ability to have two > manifests. > > We are doing similar to what Roger says, but it's just so much work... > >> >> -Alfred >> >> >>> On 10/11/16 11:59 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: >>> As the number of dependencies between packages get ever higher, it becomes >>> more and more difficult to compile packages and the dependence on binary >>> precompiled packages is increased. However binary packages are unsuitable >>> for some situations. We really need to follow the lead of some of the >>> Linux groups and have -runtime and -devel versions of packages, OR we what >>> woudlbe smarter, woudl be to have several "sub manifests" to allow >>> unpacking in different environments. >>> >>> >>> A simple example: libxml2 >>> >>> This package installs include files and libraries and dicumentation etc. >>> >>> yet if I build an appliance , I want it to only install a singe file. >>> >>> /usr/local/lib/libxml2.so.2 >>> >>> >>> The presence of this file will satisfy any runtime dependencies of packages >>> that require it. >>> >>> Unfortunately there is no way to install just this file, and still report >>> that we have the package loaded, so >>> >>> pkg will always try to reinstall it leading to a huge mess. >>> >>> My current scheme is to unpack all packages into a larger staging area, and >>> *manually* (scripted) copy out only the files I need, and then copy the pkg >>> database, so that when run on the running appliance, pkg THINKS all the >>> packages are loaded on the appliance, even though only the runtime files >>> are installed. This is what we in the industry call "a hack" :-) It is >>> also not robust in the face of changing pkg versions. >>> >>> It would be a lot better it pkg knew it was being asked to install only the >>> runtime set, and coudl accurately store this information in its database, >>> allowing it to satisfy the needs of other packages that need that >>> dependnency only in a runtime manner. >>> >>> Is any of this possible at the moment? >>> >>> suggestions from the ports/pkg community are appreciated.. >>> >>> Julian >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
