[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" <obache%netbsd.org@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
> 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, <diro%nixsyspaus.org@localhost> 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
> > 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
> > difficulty understanding it.
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
Main Index |
Thread Index |