On Tuesday 15 March 2005 09:42 pm, John Stewart wrote: > Is there a particular reason for the use of the complete kde packages > in the ports tree rather than meta-ports? It seems to me that it > would be preferable to handle these as meta-ports, to install the > individual ports that package a single application or library. It is > already done with ports such as kooka and lanbrowsing, so I assume > that this behavior could be extended to other parts of the packages > without negative effects.
Assuming that your use of "meta-ports" means you want to split all the KDE packages out into their component libraries and applications, there's a very good reason this is not done. Consider the kdegames package which contains a couple of libraries and about thirty games. All use the same source tarball. On my system it takes forty seconds to extract, configure and clean the kdegames port. If this were split into 30 different packages, that comes out to twenty additional minutes to install all these games through ports. I haven't timed it, but I think I can build and install the single port in that amount of time. It also creates additional work for the port maintainers, as they now have thirty times the ports to deal with. Some KDE packages have already been split up where it makes sense. I'm sure others will go this direction in the future. But to do it to all of them goes beyond sense. To use the kdegames port as an example, splitting it out into thirty ports is extreme. -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org _______________________________________________ kde-freebsd mailing list [email protected] http://freebsd.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-freebsd
