On 11/5/07, Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmerino@ac.upc.edu> wrote:
> On 05/11/2007, at 14:14, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > I looked in pkgsrc.txt, and while there is general "split vs. options"
> > discussion, there is nothing that speaks against options in
> > meta-packages.  An option in gnome-base to drop a dependency seems
> > less
> > troublesome than an option that changes behavior, because one can just
> > add the dependency later with the same result, except in how
> > dependencies are registered.
> >
> > Joerg has expressed that options in meta-packages seem unclean or
> > improper somehow.  Can anyone articulate why?  Does anyone else object
> > to adding a smb/samba option?
>
> I don't think adding the option there is any worse than adding it
> somewhere else (as long as it stays enabled by default).  But then,
> the meta-packages could end up being just a long list of options so
> that you'd tune every package in it -- because, some times, they are
> just that: a list of mostly-independent packages.


Aren't meta pkg's just a hack around not having enough options?