Re: Various size of (Project) ideas for NetBSD and pkgsrc

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 02:42:06AM +0200, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> [...]
> Yes, IKWYM, but then you will have to specify multiple PLISTs for each
> of the different sub-packages that you build.  So now that we have a
> separate functional description of the subpackage, you'll need a
> separate DESCR, too.  And it would be better to split the monolithic
> Makefile up, too, so that it's modular for each functional
> sub-package. And, as you note later on, non-trivial changes to the
> pkgsrc mk insfrastructure.
> 
> Once you've done that, and put each functional part into its own
> directory, you have exactly the same situation that we have at the
> moment.  Minus any huffing and puffing with the pkgsrc mk
> infrastructure. So, I'm struggling to see where the benefit lies.

See sysutils/amanda-* for example. Basically we build amanda-common 3 times
because the package is not designed to use already-installed libraries,
and chaging this would require heavy patching.
There are also some patches because --without-server or --without-client
doesn't do exactly what we want. If we could generate 3 binary packages from
a single, full build of amanda, we'd use a less compute cycles, and,
more important, less patches.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--