Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: NetBSD System Packages (LONG)
To: Hubert Feyrer <>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 10/01/1998 00:29:14
>> Hubert: suppose we make pkgsets strict supersets of pkgs.  Maybe we
>> add a +RECURSE file as second entry, or even instead of a +CONTENTS.
>> (I'm not committed to particular details.)

>What you are requesting here was in pkg_* all the time, that's exactly
>what the @pkgdep dependencies are for.

Are those `pointers' or `copies'?  the manpage says they're
pointers. is it correct?  Pointers just don't meet the requirements
which were agreed on for the install system.  I hope I count as an
expert there.

>> What do you think of revamping the "normal" pkg_* tools so that they
>> grok the pkgset format, and invoke themselves recursively on each
>> element of the pkgsets' contents, as either a pkg or another pkgset?
>> Maybe ignoring files that're "tape-recorded sysinst options"?

>Install dependencies of a pkg unless it's suppressed via some command
>line/pkg options? Shouldn't be too hard (while I don't understand why you
>would want to specify this in the pkg).

No, Hubert.  Dependency pointers just dont cut it for the install
system.  (the fact that you dont see it that way doesn't change it.)

I mean recursively unpacking pkgs from a `container', where the
`container' itself matches the speficications in pkg(5) -- if we had
ap kg(5)-- except for some as-yet-undecided feature which
distinguishes a pkgset `container' from a regular `package'.