Subject: Re: Sub package proposal
To: None <>
From: Hubert Feyrer <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 11/06/2000 16:46:32
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> 3. I'm not convinced that sub-packages are actually necessary, since most of
> their contents can be decided either by their location or by their
> filenames. 

I second this. I often do things like

	$ pkg_info -qL somepkg | grep bin/

to find out which binaries the pkg offers.

> By doing things this way, you cut out a lot of the redundant
> information that would be in sub-package PLISTs, etc, and (I believe)
> obviate the need for adding to the syntax already in the PLISTs. e.g. in
>, we have a gonzo regular expression which matches the manual
> pages for all packages, which seems to work fine. The same could be done for
> bin sub-packages, lib sub-packages, example sub-packages etc. We're still
> running into the problems as laid out in (1) above, though.

One quick solution for pkg_add comes to mind; as it uses tar to extract
files, it wouldn't be hard to pass the files to extract that way:

	tar bla.tgz bin/* share/* ...

 - Hubert

Hubert Feyrer <>