Subject: Re: BUILD_DEPENDS on autoconf
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: David Maxwell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/02/2002 18:27:17
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 01:04:31PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Friday, May 31, 2002 at 13:37:06 (+0200), Alistair Crooks wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: BUILD_DEPENDS on autoconf
> Interesting numbers, but rather pointless and extremely misleading out
> of context.
> Perhaps you should post comparisons to building a kernel, and building
> an entire NetBSD release, and xsrc, and perhaps just the NetBSD toolchain.
> Building perl on an ss2 is no slower, and requires no more or less other
> resources, in comparison to building anything else on an ss2. If you
> truly want to do builds of any modern (i.e. bloated) software on your
> ss2 then you're certainly already well accustomed to the time and effort
> it will take to do so.
That doesn't matter much though.
a) NetBSD can be installed from binaries.
b) We have to take that as 'sunk costs', or discussing installing perl
is meaningless. No OS, no perl.
Therefore the question is: Once I have a running NetBSD system, and I
want to use pkgsrc, is it a good tradeoff to have to install perl, vs
making the developers who work on pkgsrc target 'sh' instead?
David Maxwell, email@example.comfirstname.lastname@example.org -->
Net Musing #5: Redundancy in a network doesn't mean two of everything and
half the staff to run it.
- Tomas T. Peiser, CET