Subject: Re: option in gnome-base to avoid smb?
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: matthew sporleder <email@example.com>
Date: 11/05/2007 11:58:42
On 11/5/07, Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 05/11/2007, at 14:14, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > I looked in pkgsrc.txt, and while there is general "split vs. options"
> > discussion, there is nothing that speaks against options in
> > meta-packages. An option in gnome-base to drop a dependency seems
> > less
> > troublesome than an option that changes behavior, because one can just
> > add the dependency later with the same result, except in how
> > dependencies are registered.
> > Joerg has expressed that options in meta-packages seem unclean or
> > improper somehow. Can anyone articulate why? Does anyone else object
> > to adding a smb/samba option?
> I don't think adding the option there is any worse than adding it
> somewhere else (as long as it stays enabled by default). But then,
> the meta-packages could end up being just a long list of options so
> that you'd tune every package in it -- because, some times, they are
> just that: a list of mostly-independent packages.
Aren't meta pkg's just a hack around not having enough options?