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

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

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...