[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:37:36AM +0200, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>
> > 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
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
Main Index |
Thread Index |