[MacPorts] #59834: Boost: refactor and enhance
MacPorts
noreply at macports.org
Sat Jun 5 13:16:03 UTC 2021
#59834: Boost: refactor and enhance
--------------------------+----------------------
Reporter: michaelld | Owner: mascguy
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: Normal | Milestone:
Component: ports | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
Port: boost |
--------------------------+----------------------
Comment (by mascguy):
Replying to [comment:34 RJVB]:
> I see 2 reasons to spring for -dev ports : 1) size of the developer
content and 2) making build conflicts a lot easier.
>
> I have never felt the need to use this approach in every single one of
my own ports, and I agree that the endeavour to apply it throughout the
entire ports tree would be an impossible one. But that doesn't mean one
cannot use it where it's justified - and in this instance it would be
easy. Ports that decide to use the new boost ports and PG will have to
make some changes anyway, but in this case that wouldn't even be required
(see point 2) above).
Bear in mind that, a few short weeks ago, the `boost` ports installed
38,000-ish files each.
Since the recent introduction of our new `docs` variant - disabled by
default - that's been reduced to 14,000-ish. That's almost a 3x
improvement in file count! And it makes a huge difference, particularly
when multiple versions are installed side-by-side.
So we need to keep that in perspective. And while it doesn't provide quite
as much benefit as eliminating the headers entirely [via Dev ports], the
improvement is still quite significant.
Nonetheless, if you still think it's worth pursuing the Dev port approach
- despite the recent reduction in file count and storage footprint - I'm
willing to pursue it.
Your thoughts?
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/59834#comment:37>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for macOS
More information about the macports-tickets
mailing list