On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:11:10AM -0600, J. Lewis Muir wrote: | Hello, All! | | (I previously asked a similar question on the pkgsrc-users list, but | I didn't hear from anyone, so I'm trying tech-pkg now hoping it's the | right list.) | | I'd like to understand the rationale behind including a private copy of | standard functions (e.g. vasprintf) in a package rather than using ones | provided by pkgtools/libnbcompat (i.e. libnbcompat.a). Why do net/tnftp | and presumably other packages consider a private copy to be better? | | Is it in the interest of portability and minimal dependencies? If I | understand correctly, I think Alistair Crooks suggested this as his | feeling in [1] where he said the following: | | "I do not want to have to distribute libnbcompat with any code I | write. I also find requiring it to be present, just to compile stuff | that I write, to be too onerous." | | A downside is ending up with duplicate code, but maybe it's really | likely that the code is bug-free and unlikely to change, so it's fine. | | I'd really appreciate hearing thoughts on this. | | Thank you! | | Lewis | | [1] https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2015/11/02/msg009417.html The tnftp in pkgsrc is a "downstream" copy, rather than the main repository (which is currently another NetBSD.org CVS repository). As far as I understand it, net/tnftp package contains the full source (as opposed to the standard pkgsrc layout) to permit easier bootstrapping of pkgsrc itself. I'd rather not have backport a dependency on nbcompat into the upstream tnftp. regards, Luke.
Attachment:
pgp0zrfMqGQ66.pgp
Description: PGP signature