Subject: Re: elinks 0.9
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Soren Jacobsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/04/2004 00:10:14
On 01/04 00:07, Bruce J.A. Nourish wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:39:21AM +0100, Michal Pasternak wrote:
> > No, I think we can go without lua support (Python support is a must, but
> > lua? Who cares... :))). Seriously speaking, you can create "elinks"
> > including lua support and "elinks-nolua" without it.
> I must confess that I don't like the idea of adding suffixes to
> packages to distinguish between different features. This is what build
> flags are for.
Don't forget that some people only use binary packages. In this case, I
don't think it matters in the first place and lua should just be enabled
unconditionally. However, it can be quite different in other
situations. Look at audio/libao. If we enabled arts support through a
build time option, and I were a binary package user, I would have to
install qt3. qt3-tools is required by arts, which is required by libao
(libao-arts in reality), which is required by mpg321, which is the
package I want to install. That is just not acceptable. There's no way
I'm installing qt3 to play mp3s with a CLI program.