On 9/18/06, Eric Radman <theman@eradman.com> wrote:
> On 22:22 Mon 18 Sep     , Martin S. Weber wrote:
> > Can't the gnome (meta)package depend on gmplayer which builds 'mplayer' with
> > the 'suiting' options for "gnome" ?
> >
> > Can't the pure mplayer package build the minimal, functional requirements???
> >
> > I'd very much like to see a "minimal" mplayer package.
>
> That could be said for a lot of packages. I would love to see a -minimal
> option for many ports.
>
> For example, if I want the GTK library for OCaml I have to build 93
> packages! Holy cow. This includes stuff like python, openldap-client,
> evolution-data-server, etc.

Well, this is because the lack of granularity in the package.  This is
a clear example of a package that could be split in multiple ones,
each one providing a tiny bit (one providing the GTK bindings for
OCaml, the other providing e-d-s bindings, etc.).  This is both
helpful to pkgsrc users as well as those who *only* use binary
packages.  As an example take gst-plugins0.10-*.

And in the case I just described, using options is plain wrong because
then you do not have any way to specify dependencies on the given
package.  What if I built lablgtk without the e-d-s bindings but I
want to build a program that needs them?  How could I differentiate
the two cases?

(Unfortunately this schema is not applicable to mplayer due to the way
it is built.)

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>
The Julipedia - http://julipedia.blogspot.com/