Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/13/1999 13:15:53
Christoph Badura <email@example.com> writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Graff) writes:
> >For one, we can't distribute it as a binary, IMHO -- it probably
> >infringes on patents in mp3 encoding.
> The fact that we can't put a binary pkg for some piece of software up
> for anon-ftp is not an argument against a binary pkg. We can't do that
> for all the packages that contain crypto code, either. Also, binary pkgs
> are useful for internal use too.
> >For two, I don't think this is any different than postgresql using tk
> >-- that is optional, too, but most people just won't care. Those who
> >do can build from source :)
> How do you know?
I've watched people install linux. They just click on "get
everything" and expect all the bells and whistles to be there.
> Personally, I don't see why I should have to upgrade postgresql just
> because tcl got upgraded.
I'm not concerned about postgresql, I was just using that as an
example. Besides, postgresql uses ncurses, libreadline, and other
things that will get upgraded from time to time I suspect.
So, what should I do about lame and gtk+ GUI bits?
I didn't split them, since I don't want to have to install one as
"lame" and another as "lame-gui" -- that's just, well, lame. And if I
choose to split them and make them conflict with one another as I had
before, I cannot build both with "cd audio ; make install" anymore
anyway. So, which is the default? And if there is a default, why not
have just one with build options?