Subject: Re: distcc-gtk
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>
Date: 06/13/2005 18:23:48
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
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
-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>