Magnus Eriksson <magetoo%fastmail.fm@localhost> writes: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Julio Merino wrote: > >> Have two packages: > ... >> This is binary-friendly because repositories will have two different >> packages that users will be able to choose from. With package >> options, it's not possible. > > But isn't that just a limitation of the way bulk builds are done now? > I don't see any fundamental issues that would prevent a package build > being called twice with different options, in theory. (Or having two > "metapackages", where each just sets PKG_OPTIONS and then builds a > common "actual" package. Or something.) > > And I could still build from source with any combination I want. The big issues are options are not encoded into the package name when one turns off something globally, then some packages stop depending on it. That's easy. But, it also means that say for global "-samba" (to pick my favorite thing to turn off) A built with -samba should not only depend on samba but also depend on B:-samba instead of B. So basically: options are great when building from source because there is the full flexibility Building the entire set of options seems like a huge amount of building. But we could perhaps define the sets to build in the makefile so common cases are built there is some notion of pulling out major choices when the populace is split into separate packages (like dasher and gnome). This is a compromise betwen work and flexibility
Attachment:
pgpMb1pZi4du1.pgp
Description: PGP signature