Subject: Re: Package removal suggestions
To: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
Date: 04/13/2005 09:47:12
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 07:03:00PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> The coda sources make the client/server split awkward since they don't
> have mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive install targets.* But,
> all of lwp, rpc2, rvm, and coda is 6701 (du -k) on i386, so it may be
> the lesser evil to just package coda as a single package. Anyone who
> can't spare 1 MB to have the server binary present when unneeded
> doesn't have space for a client cache anyway. So, I think we should
> just have "coda", which does both client-install and server-install,
> unless someone steps up to split it. I can try to make a single coda
> package - handling the split has been the big hurdle that I haven't
> had the time/energy to clear.
Sounds fine to me.
> * Linux packaging systems seem to support a single install and then
> split the file set into separate packages ("devel" vs not), in
> particular the .so and the .a end up different. If pkgsrc could so
> this, we could a) make devel packages to save space and b) split
> coda easily. But this is a lot of work.
Some time ago, there was discussion on how this could be done.
One way I remember was to just install the whole package, but then
register different parts of the PLIST under different PKGNAMEs.
This would be rather easy to do, since there are no changes in
the packages' own infrastructure, only the PLIST would have to be
annotated (and perhaps a few lines added to the pkgsrc Makefile)
and would improve the binary package situation.
Dependencies would need some work.
I don't know of anyone working on implementing this.