Subject: Re: RFC: new variable SUGGESTS
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jan Schaumann <email@example.com>
Date: 07/22/2002 17:59:26
Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> > Binary packages uploaded to ftp.netbsd.org should, IMHO, be built from
> > an empty pksrc system to ensure that only "hard" dependencies are marked
> > as such.
> 1) That's impractical. If you make that rule, there would likely be no
> packages for anything but i386, and the ones that are uploaded would
> be sadly out of date.
> 2) We currently support users making their own portable packages - if
> you accept that principle, you break that.
> 3) Buildlink was supposed to fix all that, and the worst part of the
> transition seems to be behind us. Your proposal is, therefore, a giant
> leap backwards.
Good reasons - I retract that statement.
> What I would go for (and have suggested before), is reviving
> RUN_DEPENDS for binary packages and such that *do* *not* affect the
> build in any way, and a post-package stage to (optionally) install
> them, and run the INSTALL scripts.
I'm not familiar with RUN_DEPENDS, but the example Hubert gave does not
seem to benefit from such a procedure, as a non-dependency has become a
dependency in that case. No?
I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle.