Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)

[diro%nixsyspaus.org@localhost]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:05:03PM +0000, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.
> 
> From: Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>
> To: pkg-bug-handler%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost,  pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost,  
> gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,  pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:28:14 +0300
> 
>  diro%nixsyspaus.org@localhost writes:
>  
>  > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
>  >>  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro%nixsyspaus.org@localhost> 
> wrote:
>  >>  
>  >>  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There 
> needs to be a
>  >>  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want 
> manually
>  >>  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a 
> Makefile upon
>  >>  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the 
> solution i'm
>  >>  >  going for here.
>  >>  
>  >>  Why not pkg_chk?
>  >>  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set 
> package path to pkgchk.conf"?
>  >
>  > Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have 
> to
>  > write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config 
> files to
>  > manage my packages.
>  
>  I wonder how you deal with the need to maintain rc.conf, resolv.conf, 
> ntp.conf
>  and a number of other configuration files in /etc instead of using single
>  registry database. Multiple confiration files should not be an issue already.

This discussion is about pkgsrc. Your analogy is weak at best. There is no
reason to use pkg_chk for this instance. We already have the options.mk
framework for this.
  
>  >>  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some 
> other
>  >>  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're 
> having some
>  >>  >  difficulty understanding it.
>  >>  
>  >>  FYI:
>  >>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
>  >
>  > I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in 
> question is
>  > of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
>  > PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything 
> and
>  > otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the 
> idea
>  > that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a 
> number
>  > of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?
>  
>  Your PR is more general, it affects more than this particular meta-package,
>  if you want to propose general way, it is better to discuss it on mailing 
> list,
>  which is more convenient and more appropriate. As for now the discussion
>  is counter-productive: general consensus is what I said above, meta-packages
>  are here for no-configuration cases, there're more appropriate ways to
>  configure the set of installed packages.

No, it's specific to this package. Please, review the title of the PR. However,
it could be applied to other packages. Having an empty PKG_OPTIONS for this
package default to building everything as it normally does is still a zero
configuration case. I'm not convinced there's a more appropriate way to make
this happen within the pkgsrc framework besides options.mk. If there were, i'm
sure you or someone would have named it by now. I'm not looking to take this to
the mailing list for discussion, as it is so simple that it doesn't really
require discussion and i'm surprised that it has actually generated so much
conversation.