NetBSD-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Dependency hell, again

Magnus Eriksson <> writes:

> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>  when one turns off something globally, then some packages stop
>>  depending on it.  That's easy.  But, it also means that say for global
>>  "-samba" (to pick my favorite thing to turn off) A built with -samba
>>  should not only depend on samba but also depend on B:-samba instead of
>>  B.
> Well, just seeing it from the end user point of view, if the user has
> gone through the trouble of building A without samba, that user should
> be able to make an informed decision on B as well...

We are talking about prebuilt binaries, I thought.

The point is that there has to be logic that the prebuilt binary for A
w/o sambda has to depend on B w/o samba instead of B w/samba.

>>  Building the entire set of options seems like a huge amount of
>>  building.  But we could perhaps define the sets to build in the
>>  makefile so common cases are built
> But is that (building every combination) something anyone would want
> right now?  (This is the second time it is mentioned, and I still
> don't see why that would even be desirable.)  Building with just the
> default options seems good enough, as long as they are sane.

Huh?  I thought you were arguing that there should be binary packages
prebuilt with various options, such as dasher with and without gnome.

'sane' is not a useful word.  The test is "these options are what 95%+
of users would want", and as soon as you get large dependencies that
some would rather do without there is no clear answer.

Attachment: pgpovShyv5u_3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index