Re: Regarding package options and split packages

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> Mayuresh writes:
>>
>> - Are we ok going the rpm way? Binary first culture?

pkgsrc cares about building from source and binaries, roughly equally,
I'd say.  It seems some other systems have a basic expectation that
users will only use binary packages.  So our notion that both paths
should work is not a preference for binary packages.

>> - If rpm build system (don't know how many people have the habit to build
>>   from sources among rpm uses) supports options, that's a good thing. The
>>   worry here is pkgsrc discouraging use of options.

We are preferring split packages to options when that works.

>>   Question is not about pkgsrc as a framework supports options or not.
>>   It's about whether pkgsrc packages are encouraged to utilize them or are
>>   they discouraged. As the replies on git suggest, it seems it's being
>>   discouraged. That's the worry.

You seem to think options are better than split packages.  I don't think
that makes sense.

> Yes, having split packages instead of options is usually better.
>
> The pkgsrc guide summarize that pretty well:
>
>  There are two broad classes of behaviors that one might want to control via
>  options. One is whether some particular feature is enabled in a program that
>  will be built anyway, often by including or not including a dependency on some
>  other package. The other is whether or not an additional program will be built
>  as part of the package. Generally, it is better to make a split package for
>  such additional programs instead of using options, because it enables binary
>  packages to be built which can then be added separately.
>
> Please give a look to chapter 18 of The pkgsrc guide for more
> rationale other cases regarding that.

Thanks for posting that.  For some reason the text feels a little
familiar on reading it :-)