Re: scope of FreeBSD-utilities

On 2024-04-16 11:36, Lexi Winter wrote:
> hello,
> 
> this week i've been submitting a few patches to move things out of
> FreeBSD-utilities.  this is the 'catch all' package that everything gets
> added to if it doesn't belong to another package, so as a result it
> contains a lot of random crap that clearly shouldn't be there, simply
> because no one has gotten around to moving it to the right package yet.
> 
> i've been trying to address this, but i wanted to clarify what exactly
> should be in its own package, and what should in FreeBSD-utilities, and
> if perhaps we need some additional packages.
> 
> i briefly discussed this with manu on IRC who said that the basic idea
> is that one package should constitute a definable 'subsystem' rather
> than a single binary, which i agree with, but let me mention a few
> examples i'm unsure about:
> 
> - mlxcontrol, mprutil, mpsutil, mptutil - these are utilities for
>   managing various SCSI/SAS/RAID controllers.  should each of these be
>   in their own package (following the example of e.g. cxgbe-tools) or
>   should there be a single package for 'HBA controller utilities'?  i am
>   leaning towards the former, but this means we'll end up with a few
>   packages containing only a single binary + manpage.
agreed, former (each to their own package)

> 
> - awk, grep, bc, dc, cal, etc. - i am inlined to leave these in
>   FreeBSD-utilities on the basis that these are actually 'utilities' and
>   having a single package that provides all of them is quite useful - or
>   at least will be once everything else has been moved out of
>   -utilities so the package is a bit smaller.
Leave in.

> 
> - mt, rmt - these are niche utilities; if you have a tape drive they're
>   essential, but the vast majority of users don't have a tape drive.  so
>   should these be in their own package?
> 
own package (inclusive)

> there are more examples like this but hopefully these illustrate the
> basic issues.
> 
> i'm happy to continue submitting PRs using my best judgement for this,
> but to avoid wasting anyone's time (including mine!) i thought it might
> be useful to have a discussion about the preferred way forward here.
In closing; Not having looked at the Makefile, Is this option-based?
IOW can the user simply tick off any/all of the individual items included
in the port?

Thanks.

--Chris