[ On Saturday, June 7, 2003 at 17:19:43 (-0400), James K. Lowden wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: nox11 vs x11
>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:37:57 -0400 (EDT), "Greg A. Woods" <woods@weird.com>
> wrote:
> > Remember these variants are all about making it possible to build binary
> > versions of packages that can be installed on systems without X11, and
> > even in the case of static linking the ability to build binary packages
> > that don't include the X11 bloat when it's not going to be needed/used.
> > If we didn't care about binary packages, or if we didn't care about the
> > bloat of X11 when it's not needed, then these variants would not be
> > necessary.
> 
> Is that true?  Isn't it the case that X may change a package's
> dependencies?  

That may also be true, but it's only a side effect -- an important side
effect to be sure, but not the most important issue.

Another way to look at it is that X11 is a slippery slope....

> The -x11 version may well require GTK or the like.  If there's no -nox11
> package, how do I tell the -x11 version not to go off and install GTK for
> me first?  

First off note that it doesn't matter whether the primary variant
requires X11 and there's a "-nox11" variant, or whether the primary
variant does not require X11 and there's a "-x11" variant.  Either way
your problem remains for the variant that builds for X11.

The only solution, which may, or may not, be possible, is to create yet
another variant called the "-x11-noGTK" variant or "-noGTK" variant, as
appropriate.  :-)

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;           <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>