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

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>
To: pkg-bug-handler%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost,  pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost,  
gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,  pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:28:14 +0300

 diro%nixsyspaus.org@localhost writes:
 
 > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
 >>  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 
 >> 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.
 
 I wonder how you deal with the need to maintain rc.conf, resolv.conf, ntp.conf
 and a number of other configuration files in /etc instead of using single
 registry database. Multiple confiration files should not be an issue already.
 
 >>  >  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:
 >>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
 >
 > 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?
 
 Your PR is more general, it affects more than this particular meta-package,
 if you want to propose general way, it is better to discuss it on mailing list,
 which is more convenient and more appropriate. As for now the discussion
 is counter-productive: general consensus is what I said above, meta-packages
 are here for no-configuration cases, there're more appropriate ways to
 configure the set of installed packages.
 
 
 -- 
 HE CE3OH...