Subject: Re: Maxi-packages
To: Gavan Fantom <email@example.com>
From: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/05/2000 11:52:04
Gavan Fantom wrote
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > NetBSD doesn't make a distinction between "must have" packages
> > to succesfully compile/build/run an applicaton and "nice to have"
> > feature in order to make it more versatile and flexible.
> > Personally, I would like to see the packages system to make a package
> > to depend only on those auxillary programs which are needed to compile,
> > build and run an application correctly. The configuraton of "nice to have"
> > features should be left to the user. In the simplest case this may be
> > a list of options which are disabled by default in the packages
> > Makefile, but may be enabled through user interaction.
> How about providing the options MINIMAL_DEPENDS and INTERACTIVE_DEPENDS in
> mk.conf. The current way of doing things would be represented by
> MINIMAL_DEPENDS=NO and INTERACTIVE_DEPENDS=NO. The meaning of
> MINIMAL_DEPENDS is fairly obviously not to pull in anything which is
> optional (like TeX for magicfilter), and INTERACTIVE_DEPENDS would mean
> that the user would be prompted for each optional package. In this case,
> the default answer could be provided by the value of MINIMAL_DEPENDS.
Yes this seems feasables and if set to correctly it will still allow
Name : Berndt Josef Wulf | +++ With BSD on Packet Radio +++
E-Mail : email@example.com | tfkiss, tnt, dpbox, wampes
ICQ : 18196098 | VK5ABN, Nairne, South Australia
URL : http://www.ping.net.au/~wulf | MBOX : vk5abn@vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.au.oc
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.4 | BBS : vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.aus.oc