On Dec 4, 2013, at 18:35 , David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:13:15PM +0000, Jonathan Perkin wrote: >> As a purveyor of a binary package distribution, I would always prefer >> separate packages. Users are going to have different needs, and it >> sucks to force a lot of them to have to build from source. > > ...and I would like to figure out how to make options more useful for > binary packages. I've just thought of that too… We always have to rebuild some of packages we use after a binary upgrade (because the defaults for some of the packages are not containing the knobs we need to have enabled. I noticed the way MacPorts done it and it looks reasonable ok. They name the package "variants" as: pkgname @version+option(s). Perhaps pkgsrc could name those alternative bin pkgs as: pkgname+option(s)-version ? OTOH, it would too time-consuming to build all pkgs with all the different make-option combinations, so instead a new variable in the Makefile (eg. ALSO_MAKE_BIN_PKG_WITH=tls (ok, not an optimal name, but you get the idea…)) could be created to make the "extra" bin pkgs + make-option(s) that's missing from PKG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS. Then the maintainer (or any pkgsrc-dev) could add any new pkg bin options that is asked for, without influencing the old defaults. /P
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail