Am 27.09.17 um 13:52 schrieb Julian Elischer: > On 27/9/17 4:20 pm, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > Before this gets too far down the road I would like to suggest that we > quickly formalise some nomenclature > or we will have 200 different ideas as to how to do the same thing; > > I would like to propose the following possible "examples of official" > flavours: > -nodocs .. nearly every port has a DOCS option.. a way to > automatically turn it off globally and generate said pkgs would be good. > -minimal .. smallest possible feature set.. probably used just to > satisfy some stupid dependency. > -kitchensink .. speaks for itself .. options lit up like a christmas > tree > -runtime .. no .a files, include files, development > documentation or sources .. > might only contain a single libxx.so.N file, or a > single binary executable.
No, these are no good examples for flavours, as I understand them ... These are possible typical sub-package categories, or rather you could remove the DOCS from the base port, but offer a sub-package for them. I'd rather think that NO-X11 might become a typical flavour, or the dependency on a particular crypto library (e.g. openssl vs. libressl). Regards, STefan _______________________________________________ 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"