Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
To: Sean Davis , Todd Vierling <>
From: Berndt Josef Wulf <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 08/22/2003 01:05:14
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:
> > : It is my understanding that ARTS needs KDE. If neither QT or ARTS need
> > : KDE, then why does mplayer go off building kdebase unless you disable
> > : ARTS in mk.conf?
> >
> > I do use KDE, but the arts package depends on qt3-libs (and qt3-tools for
> > building), and kdebase depends on arts (not the other way round).  At the
> > time you tried building and saw this behavior, the following line in
> > audio/arts/ may not have been commented out:
> >
> > #.include "../../x11/kde3/"
> >
> > IMNSHO, the above shouldn't even be there.  arts can run perfectly
> > happily without any KDE apps or libraries, as I've seen on a friend's
> > GNOME-based NetBSD box.
> >
> > As of this writing, I can see no way that mplayer can depend on kde*
> > packages, though by default it will depend on arts, which depends on
> > qt3-{libs,tools}.
> Well, it was something like a week ago when I rebuilt mplayer, so it is
> probable that it doesn't anymore. I only meant to use that as an example of
> one (relatively) small thing causing one (extremely :) huge thing to get
> built, by way of the pkgsrc defaults.
> > : > 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 (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/ 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