Subject: Re: Consistent "Optional Dependecy" handling
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Juan RP <email@example.com>
Date: 08/01/2003 02:28:19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:15:03 -0500
Nate Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It has come to my attention that this binary package "issue" is going
> to become a rather large one. So, I'd like to address it before
> another flamewar begins.
> -This problem already exists.
> There are many trivial USE-like flags in the various .mk files which
> change aspects of a package. The binary packages released by NetBSD
> are all built with the default settings. Major features (I can really
> only think of the gtk one atm) are handled with alternate package
> names, like: foo-gtk1 and foo-gtk2. If you want to build a foo
> package differently then, you build from source and change settings
> via .mk infrastructure. Your binary package will be named the same
> but will differ.
What about if I want gtk2 support on gaim but I don't want gtk2 in
Really, I prefer package-suffix rather than of a common BUILD_DEF, IMO.
Juan RP <email@example.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----