Re: bulk-*

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:

> 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.

So what's the point of introduction of the same thing in a "poor-man's" way?

>  > 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...)

What is the point of doing this in a way that is not intended for this purpose?

>  > 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.

I don't see what months you're talking about. What I see is the warning
that you're going to commit it and you're doing it without leaving any
sensible time to raise objections.


-- 
HE CE3OH...