[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Shouldn't "make replace" pull in pkgtools/pkg_tarup?
Why not add dependency on digest, pkg_tarup and checkperms to your distbb,
if distbb really require those packages and/or want to installed before use it?
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:33:23 +0900, Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>
> >>> 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).
>> It probably mean "Optional Infrastructure" packages.
>> Bootstrap packages should be kept minimam, because
>> one of them is broken, failed to bootstrap.
> IMHO this purpose results in unnecessary complications in pkgsrc
> itself and bulk building software. Having exactly two categories for
> packages can make both simplier. This thread gives me an idea to completely
> remove dances around digest, pkg_tarup and checkperms from my distbb
> and to force users to add all these to bootstrap tarball, that is
> to emulate 2-category clear system.
> Also, following your logic (minimalism) why packages required for
> handling binaries (only pkg_install?) are not separated into an
> individual category (bin-bootstrap?),
> i.e. ./bootstrap --without-pkgs-for-building
"Of course I love NetBSD":-)
OBATA Akio / obache%NetBSD.org@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |