Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:08:26PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> 
>>It may be a bit more work, but it's definitely worth it from the
>>binary packages' point of view.  And, if the gtk frontend is provided
>>in an independent subdirectory within the source package, things will
>>be very easy by using BUILD_DIRS/INSTALL_DIRS.
> 
> 
> I fail to see the advantage of this.  In my case, you either install
> distcc or distcc-gtk.  In your case, you either install distcc only, or
> distcc + distcc-gtk.  Not much difference from a binary package point of
> view.  

The goal here is to have as few conflicts as possible between packages. 
  Admittedly, it matters little for this package, since I don't think 
any packages actually have a run-time dependency on distcc, but the 
principle is still the same.

> The gtk frontend is not in its own subdirectory.  So when building from
> source, the easiest option really is in the ./configure flag.  That's
> when we usually have a compile-time option, or twin packages, cfr icewm.  
> 
> It would also require less maintenance when the package's source
> structure changes, but the ./configure flags remain compatible.  Then we
> won't have to change anything.  

In this case, I would rather we build it that way, but then have a 
special install target to only install the GTK+ bits in the distcc-gtk 
package.  This would prevent having distcc and distcc-gtk conflict with 
each other.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>