Subject: Re: nox11 vs x11
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: James K. Lowden <email@example.com>
Date: 06/07/2003 19:49:44
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:36:01 -0400 (EDT), "Greg A. Woods" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> [ On Saturday, June 7, 2003 at 17:19:43 (-0400), James K. Lowden wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:37:57 -0400 (EDT), "Greg A. Woods" wrote:
> > > Remember these variants are all about making it possible to build
> > > binary versions of packages that can be installed on systems without
> > > X11,
> > Is that true? Isn't it the case that X may change a package's
> > dependencies?
> That may also be true, but it's only a side effect -- an important side
> effect to be sure, but not the most important issue.
I read an essay on drugs in Harper's last year that convinced me there's
no objective definition of "side effect". A thing has effects. Which
ones are "side" depends entirely on the desired outcome.
I guess you're telling me these variants were invented to facilitate
building binary packages.
> The only solution, which may, or may not, be possible, is to create yet
> another variant called the "-x11-noGTK" variant or "-noGTK" variant, as
> appropriate. :-)
AIUI that's Jeremy's argument for "flavors" a la OpenBSD.