Re: Shouldn't "make replace" pull in pkgtools/pkg_tarup?

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost> writes:

>  >>  >> Currently there are three categories of packages
>  >>  >> 1) a part of bootstrap (pkg_install, tnftp, bmake, nawk etc.)
>  >>  >> 2) generic packages
>  >>  >> 3) implicit dependencies, e.g. pkgtools/digest,  sysutils/checkperms 
> etc.
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >> Is category 3 is really necessary? Why not to make those packages a
>  >>  >> part of bootstrap and make things easier?
>  >>
>  >>> sysutils/checkperms isn't used, unless you set PKG_DEVELOPER.
>  >>
>  >> Anyway, I don't understand why pkgtools/digest, sysutils/checkperms
>  >> and pkgtools/tarup are not a part of bootstrap.
>
>> At least checkperms and tarup are not necessary,
>> same with digest, which is (seems to be) used only when building from source.
>
> Ok. You stated that category 3 can be defined as "packages required for
> building from source but not needed for handling binaries". Right?
> How about nawk/pdksh/bmake?

nawk is there to support systems, where you don't have sane awk
(or don't have it at all).
pdksh is there to support systems, where you don't have sane sh.
bmake is there to support systems, where you don't have it.

> I still don't see a _definition_.
> "Not essential" doesn't look fair enough.

Why do you need this definition?

All seems to be pretty consistent:
1. Package management tools.
2. Packages.
3. Optional helper (infrastructure) packages
(e.g. for building from the source).


-- 
HE CE3OH...