Re: New options for freeswitch

[Julio Merino <julio%meroh.net@localhost>]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:57 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy%netbsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:22:16 -0400
> Julio Merino <julio%meroh.net@localhost> wrote:
>> Cannot you create 4 different packages, one for every bit rate,
>> instead?
>
> Not that simple.  This package would actually be pulled in by the main
> FreeSWITCH package so they would have to decide then which music files
> to pull in.  Since they have to pick some options (or use the defaults)
> anyway there is nothing really to be gained by splitting up the package
> that would be included.
>
> Why would you split it up?  Multiple options is not tricky.  I'm just
> trying to get consensus on the names.

The reason are binary packages. Options are bad because they don't
give a choice to the users of your package: they'll be forced to use
whatever the bulk builder decided. By providing individual binary
packages, you allow your users to decide which one to choose.

Now... if the main FreeSWITCH package has to depend on one of the
various audio packages, then yes, this is not trivial because pkgsrc
does not offer a "Provides" mechanism.

But I don't know anything about FreeSWITCH, so I cannot tell how hard
or easy this is, or even if it makes sense. What other packages will
form FreeSWITCH? Will there be a meta-package that just pulls in a
variety of packages?  Will the software package depend on the audio
package instead?

-- 
Julio Merino / @jmmv