Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-27 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Thursday April 27 2017 11:37:41 Rainer Müller wrote: >No, this is not true at all. You can install a .deb or .rpm without >having a corresponding local index. In case of Debian, installing >packages is even fully separated in two tools (dpkg and apt). You're right, I forgot about standalone .d

Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-27 Thread Rainer Müller
On 2017-04-26 19:11, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Wednesday April 26 2017 17:32:58 Rainer Müller wrote: > >> source, but skip the compilation with pre-compiled archives. These >> are not real packages, as they cannot be installed standalone >> without a source ports tree. > > Hmm? You mean the Po

Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-26 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Wednesday April 26 2017 17:32:58 Rainer Müller wrote: > source, but skip the compilation with pre-compiled archives. These are > not real packages, as they cannot be installed standalone without a > source ports tree. Hmm? You mean the Portfiles? That's not really different from Debian and pr

Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-26 Thread Rainer Müller
On 2017-04-26 14:15, René J.V. Bertin wrote: >> I really really don't think a PortGroup is the right way to do >> this. This should be done in base, with proper support of creating >> multiple packages from a single build and then optionally >> installing some of them, more like FreeBSD's ports doe

Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-26 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Wednesday April 26 2017 13:32:47 Clemens Lang wrote: Hi, > I really really don't think a PortGroup is the right way to do this. This > should > be done in base, with proper support of creating multiple packages from a > single > build and then optionally installing some of them, more like F

Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-26 Thread Jan Stary
> > Those are all files that are only required when using port "A" > > as a dependency for *building* other software but not as a dependency > > for running that dependent software. > > The keyword here is "only". It is not unusual to install a library > (and its header files, and its pkgconfig fi

Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-26 Thread Clemens Lang
Hi, - On 23 Apr, 2017, at 15:54, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: > I'd like to draw some attention to a prototype implementation of a PortGroup I > wrote for creating "dev" ports, akin to Debian/Ubuntu's "-dev" packages: > https://trac.macports.org/ticket/52713 I really really do

Re: "dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-26 Thread Jan Stary
On Apr 23 15:54:07, rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: > I'd like to draw some attention to a prototype implementation of a PortGroup > I wrote for creating "dev" ports, akin to Debian/Ubuntu's "-dev" packages: > https://trac.macports.org/ticket/52713 > I've been using this for a while now and find it pa

"dev" ports (=/= "devel" ports!)

2017-04-23 Thread René J . V . Bertin
Hi, I'd like to draw some attention to a prototype implementation of a PortGroup I wrote for creating "dev" ports, akin to Debian/Ubuntu's "-dev" packages: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/52713 I've been using this for a while now and find it particularly useful for avoiding build conflicts. T