tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: git implies gitk

Thomas Klausner <> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 03:07:28AM +0000, wrote:
>> gitk requires tk, so X11. it's not a standard thing people expect
>> out of 'pkg_add git'. can we omit this dependency from the git package?
> It's a problem of naming. What you seem to want can be done with
> 'pkg_add git-base'; but we also want to have a package that installs
> "all of" git, and that's currently "git".
> Do you have a suggestion for better package name for the latter?
> Also, it has been that way a long time, so we need to re-educate
> existing users if we change it now.

Agreed.  There are two things that make this hard:

  git-base and git-docs is a logical definition of core git.  But we
  don't have a metapackage for that.  And maybe git-contrib belongs.  In
  general, for any package with pieces, various people will want to
  split it up various ways.

  I get it that you don't like the X11 dependency.  But upstream has it
  that way.  This is a general problem with upstreams that think it's ok
  to build or not build something based on what's installed, which works
  for hand building but plays badly with packaging systems.   Given that
  upstream has gitk as part of the distribution, why are the people who
  don't expect it as part of git right?

I could certainly see the argument for gitk not being fundamental (even
though I use it), and dropping git-gitk from the git metapackage.  But I
sort of view that as a bug in the git distribution, and would not
seriously suggest filing a bug report and asking them to split it off
into a seprate distfile.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index