[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:50:56PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> > >> This is not consistent either. When following this approach we
> > >> should have meta-pkgs/bulk-all package to build all possible
> > >> packages.
> > >
> > > I don't see how that follows.
> > The purpose of these 'bulk" packages is not to provide some consistent
> > installation, they are collections of packages that might be useful.
> > All packages might be useful, thus we should have bulk-all.
> That is nonsense, especially since all of the bulk tools are perfectly
> capable of building "all packages" on their own.
So what's the point of introduction of the same thing in a "poor-man's" way?
> > pbulk also suits better the original intention, which is to track state
> > rather than build all of the software. If some optional packaged stops
> > building, pbulk will step over and continue with packages that can be built
> > while meta-package will just stop.
> I don't understand. You realize that the point is to put "bulk-medium"
> in pbulk's packages-to-build list, right? (Or, if not pbulk, whatever
> your favorite other build tool is...)
What is the point of doing this in a way that is not intended for this purpose?
> > Finally, there's political issue
> ...which is only a problem if you want to make it one.
> > This demonstrates that the idea wasn't that good from the very beginning.
> Yeah whatever. Thanks for sharing this back when I was first talking
> about it months ago.
I don't see what months you're talking about. What I see is the warning
that you're going to commit it and you're doing it without leaving any
sensible time to raise objections.
Main Index |
Thread Index |