Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
To: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sean Davis <email@example.com>
Date: 08/21/2003 11:50:33
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:05:14AM +0930, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:00 am, Sean Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:13:41AM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Sean Davis wrote:
> > > : > But if you can turn it off in mk.conf, then there is no problem.
> > > :
> > > : I suppose I agree, but it would be nice if it were easier to find the
> > > : knobs than to have to dig through bsd.pkg.mk. (as in, if there were an
> > > : MKOPTIONS file in the pkgsrc dirs, that listed the different options
> > > : for that package. I realize that would be a lot of work, its not really
> > > : a suggestion, but it would be nice.)
> > >
> > > mk/bsd.pkg.defaults.mk is one such place, though it's getting kind of
> > > large. It should probably be split sometime into package-specific and
> > > pkgsrc-global bits.
> > I agree. A subdirectory in mk/ to contain package-specific .mk's perhaps?
> > (I'm no make guru; I have no idea if subdirectories under mk/ are a good
> > idea or a terrible one, it's just what occured to me as a possibility.)
> > -Sean
> What's wrong with a "config.options" file in the corresponding package
> directory containing optional dependencies that are by default disabled?
> All a user has to do is to toggle the desired options and Bob is your uncle,
> whilst binary packages are build only with the required dependencies!
> cheerio Berndt
That's sounds like a much better idea than putting stuff in an mk/
subdirectory to me. As I said, that was just what occured to me at the time.
I didn't think about it long before tossing it out there as an idea.
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign Sean Davis
X Against HTML aka dive
/ \ Email!