pkgsrc-Bugs archive

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

Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.
> From: "OBATA Akio" <>
> To:
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:57:23 +0900
>  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <> wrote:
>  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs 
> to be a
>  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want 
> manually
>  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a 
> Makefile upon
>  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the 
> solution i'm
>  >  going for here.
>  Why not pkg_chk?
>  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package 
> path to pkgchk.conf"?

Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have to
write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config files to
manage my packages.

>  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
>  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having 
> some
>  >  difficulty understanding it.
>  FYI:

I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in question is
of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything and
otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the idea
that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a number
of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?

Timothy Lee Roden
    Systems Administrator - Nixsys Public Access UNIX System
GPG Key fingerprint = 8669 0AFC 2051 0C05 2D9C  FB9F D7F6 8838 73E8 BA22

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index