Re: Building Abiword 3.0.0 fails in build stage

["David H. Gutteridge" <dhgutteridge%sympatico.ca@localhost>]

On 2014-12-22, at 1:30 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> On 22 December 2014 at 17:04, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
>> So how does that lead to a set of binary packages produced by a bulk
>> build which are a reasonable tradeoff of having things available and not
>> bringing in unreasonable dependencies for the base package?
> 
> I'm not sure about the "unreasonable dependencies". If they are
> already in pkgsrc and they are not broken, why worry? In my builds,
> most of the work is done by building the package itself, not the
> dependencies.

I agree. I don't think we need to offer packaging beyond what
the upstream developers have provided (where possible).

>> I'm not trying to argue that opendocument should be separate.  A world
>> where a few plugins that don't hurt much dependency-wise and that almost
>> all users want are bundled, and others aren't, is totally fine.
> 
> This is something we could discuss after the package has been tested
> to be working sufficiently ok. Then we could ask ourselves which
> plugins are needed and which not.
> 
> For example Slackware, which is relatively minimalistic, maintains a
> Slackbuild with these options:
> 
> ./configure \
>  --prefix=/usr \
>  --sysconfdir=/etc \
>  --localstatedir=/var \
>  --mandir=/usr/man \
>  --libdir=/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX} \
>  --docdir=/usr/doc/$PRGNAM-$VERSION \
>  --disable-static \
>  --enable-shared \
>  --enable-clipart \
>  --enable-templates \
>  --enable-plugins \
> 
> Re:
> http://slackbuilds.org/slackbuilds/14.1/office/abiword/abiword.SlackBuild
> 
> What I am trying to do is to build Abiword with various options and
> see how it works. I would like to compare the size of various
> binaries.
> 
> Is the alternative to make a separate plugin package? In which case
> who volunteers?

I think the goal should be to match the upstream distribution and if
someone else really wants to create non-default options, they can do
so as they wish, but it shouldn't hold up updating the existing
package to a more recent release.

Dave