Subject: Re: Consistent "Optional Dependecy" handling
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/31/2003 16:40:35
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> foobar-arts, foobar-esound, foobar-gtk, foobar-arts-esound, foobar-arts-gtk,
> foobar-esound-gtk, foobar-arts-esound-gtk... *sigh*
> This seems quite flexible, but I doubt it is really good. And imagine what
> could happen with... mplayer hehe.
That definitely wouldn't be useful for official downloads, but maybe for
some NetBSD users.
As for me, the only thing I really use is USE_PAM and USE_CRACKLIB under
Linux. (And on some custom pkgsrc of mine, I have a feature that makes it
so ncurses and other libraries are always registered as dependencies.) And
I don't want the package name (or filename) changed!
> And, just curious. What could happen if you have USE_GTK=NO and you try to
> build, say xmms? You get "pkg useless without gtk" or the package is built
> unconditionally as it's its default?
Just do its default -- and you get gtk.
Jeremy C. Reed