Re: bulk-*

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:50:56PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
 > >> This is not consistent either. When following this approach we
 > >> should have meta-pkgs/bulk-all package to build all possible
 > >> packages.
 > >
 > > I don't see how that follows.
 > 
 > The purpose of these 'bulk" packages is not to provide some consistent
 > installation, they are collections of packages that might be useful.
 > All packages might be useful, thus we should have bulk-all.

That is nonsense, especially since all of the bulk tools are perfectly
capable of building "all packages" on their own.

 > pbulk also suits better the original intention, which is to track state
 > rather than build all of the software. If some optional packaged stops
 > building, pbulk will step over and continue with packages that can be built
 > while meta-package will just stop.

I don't understand. You realize that the point is to put "bulk-medium"
in pbulk's packages-to-build list, right? (Or, if not pbulk, whatever
your favorite other build tool is...)

 > Finally, there's political issue

...which is only a problem if you want to make it one.

 > This demonstrates that the idea wasn't that good from the very beginning.

Yeah whatever. Thanks for sharing this back when I was first talking
about it months ago.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost