Subject: Re: Firewall packages
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bernd Salbrechter <email@example.com>
Date: 09/16/2000 23:33:08
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 09:32:06PM +0200, Bernd Salbrechter wrote:
> > Hey wouldn't it make more sense to classify the parts of a package and
> > add options to pkg_add to install only those parts the user wants.
> > Is there some need to strip down the distribution sets also?
> > I could identify the following part in a package:
> > 1. RUN-TIME: what's need to work with the pkg.
> > 2. DOCUMENTATION: the online documentation, which is nice to have.
> > 3. DEVELOPMENT: what's need to develop other packages using this one.
> > This will be a superset of "RUN-TIME", but not including
> > DOCUMENTATION (you can have this somewhere else).
> > 4. CONFIGURATION: default configuration files.
> > 5. EXAMPLES: Files that can be used to give the user some results he
> > can look on (i.e. tiger.ps in ghostscript).
> > Should this be split into RUN-TIME, DEVELOPMENT and CONFIGURATION?
> > 6. MESSAGE-CATALOGS: I'm sure not everyone need all languages, but more
> > than one can be quite common. Dictionaries for several languages
> > are better handled as separate packages. This will need a way to
> > install all message catalogs for a set of given languages for all
> > installed packages.
> Please also add:
> 7. SHARE: all files under the share directory (supposed to be MI and shared
> accros multiple architectures). This can he handy for machines which mount
> share from another one.
Nice that at least one like the idea, but I think that a category
SHARE would not fit into that I have described. I.e. groff macros
will go into SHARE, but are need to use groff so they must in
RUN-TIME. At the other hand the examples form ghostscript, which
will also go into SHARE, are only EXAMPLES and not need to use
I can understand the need to separate
1. Host specific files;
2. Architecture specific files;
3. CPU specific files;
4. Share able files.
But the only solution I can see for the problem is a two dimensional
As I have written all ready in the answer to Huberts mail, a longer
discussion should take place, before someone start an implementation.
I think user defined parts (as in System V packages) are a bad
idea, it will never be clear do I need that part or not.
PS.: Jun Ebihara and David Brownlee what do you think about the
idea (I'm afraid it will break your time line).
PPS.: Do anyone who works on pkg-zing the base distribution can