[pmc hat firmly off] David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost> writes: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:38, Vitaly Shevtsov <shev.vt1984%gmail.com@localhost> wrote: >> Can desktop-file-utils be optional for xterm? Because this dependence >> requires heavy glib2 and it seems removing it from x11/xterm/Makefile >> has no side effects. One question is how populated your corner of the pkgsrc-using space is. While we tree to accomodate most people in many ways, there is often a cost to others in complexity. So I'd like to ask about that. On my desktop system, glib2 is required by 97 packages. On two servers, one has it because of ffmpeg4, and one does not. So, I wonder if you are using it on a server machine with no local display, and you are doing nothing else "desktoppy" (to misuse a non-word) on that machine? Are you building yourself, or using binary packages? What is the total size of all of your packages and how does 16 MB compare? Or do you have a problem with the presence of glib2, vs "heavy"? I have problems with a bunch of things from time to time, being bloated or nonportable, but by list is more things like rust, nodejs, haskell, qt5 and cmake. glib2 just does not show up in my world as a problem. Even on the server that has it, it's tiny compared to the stuff that requires it. I acknowledge that xterm is small. > There are probably two obvious approaches to this. The third is to not do anything :-) I think that always has to be on the table. Of course Vitaly can always just comment out that line. But it's more or less your first option, less easy for users, and less cognitive load for everybody. > The simpler would be to add a desktopdb option to xterm/options.mk > (defaulting to on), though all other packages including > sysutils/desktop-file-utils/desktopdb.mk should really be updated to > match Agreed, and this is a bunch of code. > A better approach would probably be to adjust > desktop-file-utils/desktop.db.mk to not depend on the > desktop-file-utils package, and desktop-file-utils/files/install.tmpl > to check for the presence of UPDATE_DESKTOPDB before calling it. > desktop-file-utils already calls UPDATE_DESKTOPDB on install, so it > should Just Work... I might have a poke at this later :) It sounds like you think that we can have a full dependency on desktop-file-utils for things that use the files this limited dependency for things that provide files and critically, the property that the system state does not depend on the order of package installation and deinstallation, for any legal ordering perhaps, no additional script files installed and having to run as part of package installation and deinstallation compared to where we are now Overall I don't think glib2 is big, and that the case of a system with no glib2 a system with no desktop-file-utils wanting xterm being bothered by glib2 is extremely rare, perhaps only 1 human. So I'm very reluctant for us to add complexity for it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature