tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: bulk-*

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:37:36AM +0200, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
 > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Aleksej Saushev <> 
 > wrote:
 > > Please, try to understand the difference between meta-package and a
 > > collection of packages. One fundamental difference is that it has to
 > > install all of its dependencies in order to get built. We do have
 > > conflicting packages in pkgsrc, don't we?
 > I think this is a good point. I thought about the same when bulk-* appeared.
 > However, I think this raises much more fundamental pkgsrc's problem.
 > If run-time dependency is really RUN-TIME, there is no any reason to install
 > them at build time for building a meta package.

Yes, and as meta-packages are special-cased in a lot of ways already
it's not necessarily a bad idea to just adopt this behavior.

 > From practical point of view, it's easier to keep bulk-* as meta packages
 > and provide a way to not install "dependencies" at build-time thus avoiding
 > problems if conflicting "dependencies" appear. I don't think adapting bulk
 > build tools for this functionality is a right way to go.

The other practical issue is that we don't have any method for
handling lists of packages other than meta-packages; and, most
meta-packages are in fact "lists of packages". The only thing
different about the bulk-* packages is that installing them is
basically useless.

If you want to float an entire new scheme of lists of packges just so
the bulk-* lists don't themselves have to be packages, be my guest,
but it seems like a lot of work in pursuit of a minor abstract point.

(Admittedly it is also untidy that at least bulk-large cannot itself
be "built" successfully, but until we're down to no more than a dozen
or so routine failures I don't see this as terribly important.)

David A. Holland

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index