Subject: Re: Binary packages and optional dependencies
To: Havard Eidnes <email@example.com>
From: Hauke Fath <hauke@Espresso.Rhein-Neckar.DE>
Date: 10/21/2006 21:04:36
At 20:01 Uhr +0200 21.10.2006, Havard Eidnes wrote:
[apache extensions default to apache2]
>A couple of questions:
>1) Do we aim at solving this problem, or is "build that package
> from source, then" an acceptable answer? (It would be nice if
> we supported use of binary packages...)
I see the same problem with emacs-based packages that default to emacs.
@work, people use xemacs, so I run the bulk build with
USE_XEMACS = yes
EMACS_TYPE = xemacs214
only to find that half of the emacs-based packages do not build, or even
stall the build because elisp compiles with xemacs hang.
And yet another one: If you want firefox-bin as well as firefox on NetBSD,
you have to build one or the other manually, because the build looks at
MOZILLA_USE_LINUX and builds either the native or the linux package.
Like with cpp #ifdefs, there's a maintenance issue; and it's a pain to find
out why a bulk build does not have the packages you expect, and fix it.
"It's never straight up and down" (DEVO)