[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost>
> Am 23.01.2013 20:29 schrieb "Aleksej Saushev" <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>:
>> > 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"
> Exactly. This is why we don't have bulk-all.
> Other than that, I am not sure that I get your point. You iterated several
> times that you think these bulk packages are a bad idea. What is it that you
> propose instead?
Summarizing what I understood so far, as an outsider:
The concern is that these meta-packages serve no purpose to the end
user, and therefore they should not be packages that end in the
repository. Nobody should feel the need to "install" these packages,
as otherwise you get into the situation of "my favorite teeny-tiny
window manager is not in your list but the rest of the packages suit
my use case very well; can you add what's missing for myself?". (I
happen to agree with that claim, although an easy way out would be to
mark the bulk-* packages as not-for-distribution or similar.)
The proposed alternative would be to have simple text files with the
list of packages that form these bulk building exercises (e.g.
pkgsrc/awesome-bulk-lists/small.txt) that you can feed into your
favorite bulk build system.
Julio Merino / @jmmv
Main Index |
Thread Index |