Subject: Re: Sub package proposal
To: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: TAKEMURA Shin <email@example.com>
Date: 11/14/2000 14:30:48
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:46:42 +0100 (MET)
From: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In short, I'd rather see our packages split properly where it's
> To make things easier, creating several (binary) packages from one
> installation might be doable (like RPM has): you install a shared and a
> static lib in one "make install", and end up with two packages registerred
> and tarred up. I think code for this can also be found in OpenBSD - check
> out their bsd.ports.mk for MULTI_PACKAGES/SUBPACKAGE (used e.g. to build
> pine and pico in one run, check out their ports/mail/pine).
I can't agree with you more. Yes, I've known that is better than
my proposal, however, I'm afraid that it's too hard for us to do.
I want to know how are maintainers feeling about that. I don't
persist in my proposal.
BTW, how did it go about too many I-nodes issue? It might be nice
to concatenate all of pkg/ files into one file like RPM's spec file.