[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Regarding package options and split packages
Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> Mayuresh writes:
>> - Are we ok going the rpm way? Binary first culture?
pkgsrc cares about building from source and binaries, roughly equally,
I'd say. It seems some other systems have a basic expectation that
users will only use binary packages. So our notion that both paths
should work is not a preference for binary packages.
>> - If rpm build system (don't know how many people have the habit to build
>> from sources among rpm uses) supports options, that's a good thing. The
>> worry here is pkgsrc discouraging use of options.
We are preferring split packages to options when that works.
>> Question is not about pkgsrc as a framework supports options or not.
>> It's about whether pkgsrc packages are encouraged to utilize them or are
>> they discouraged. As the replies on git suggest, it seems it's being
>> discouraged. That's the worry.
You seem to think options are better than split packages. I don't think
that makes sense.
> Yes, having split packages instead of options is usually better.
> The pkgsrc guide summarize that pretty well:
> There are two broad classes of behaviors that one might want to control via
> options. One is whether some particular feature is enabled in a program that
> will be built anyway, often by including or not including a dependency on some
> other package. The other is whether or not an additional program will be built
> as part of the package. Generally, it is better to make a split package for
> such additional programs instead of using options, because it enables binary
> packages to be built which can then be added separately.
> Please give a look to chapter 18 of The pkgsrc guide for more
> rationale other cases regarding that.
Thanks for posting that. For some reason the text feels a little
familiar on reading it :-)
Main Index |
Thread Index |