[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Shouldn't "make replace" pull in pkgtools/pkg_tarup?
>>> At least checkperms and tarup are not necessary, same with
>>> digest, which is (seems to be) used only when building from
>> Ok. You stated that category 3 can be defined as "packages required for
>> building from source but not needed for handling binaries". Right?
>> How about nawk/pdksh/bmake?
> nawk is
nawk, bmake and pdksh are required for bulding packages, not for
handling binaries. So, your first try to define category3 failed.
>> I still don't see a _definition_.
>> "Not essential" doesn't look fair enough.
> Why do you need this definition?
If I cannot describe thing by one short sentence, this probably
means that this thing is badly designed.
> All seems to be pretty consistent:
> 1. Package management tools.
> 2. Packages.
> 3. Optional helper (infrastructure) packages
> (e.g. for building from the source).
Optional? - yes. Helper? - yes. Infrustructure? - I think no.
Infrustructure packages should be in 1).
I don't understand why pkg_tarup used by 'make replace' is not
in bootstrap. The same for checkperms run from inside pkgsrc.
And I don't like things like BULK_PREREQ.
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.
Main Index |
Thread Index |