Re: lib/40346: libexpat should be in base.tgz

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:55:02PM +0000, Alan Barrett wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR lib/40346; it has been noted by GNATS.
> 
> From: Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: lib/40346: libexpat should be in base.tgz
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:47:36 +0200
> 
>  On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>  > But it would be silly to build official binary packages with 
> X11_TYPE=modular.
>  
>  Why?
>  
>  I think it would be sensible to build official binary packages with
>  several different combinations of options, and to have a naming scheme
>  that facilitates finding the correct variant of a binary package.

Given the number of possible combination it's not doable. that would take
months to build unless you have a clusters of several dozen of x86 boxes.

Anyway it wouldn't fix this issue; there's no reason to have to use
a different X11_TYPE= to get a working package of something that isn't related
to x11.

>  
>  > If libexpat is used by more software than X11 ones, it should be in
>  > base and not xbase. It doesn't look very x11-specific anyway.
>  
>  Right, it doesn't look x11-specific.  But I still don't see why
>  it can't be kept in pkgsrc.

So you'd have 2 version of the library on a workstation ?
If the version in the base system is good enough for a package it should use
the one from base.  But then the base system should make is available
without extra dependancy (at last not one as large as x11).

This works fine for things like openssl, I can't see why it wouldn't work
for this library.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--