Re: wip/gnurl: Request for review

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

ng0%n0.is@localhost writes:

> Greg Troxel transcribed 719 bytes:
>> ng0%n0.is@localhost writes:
>> 
>> > I'm in the process of updating gnunet for NetBSD/pkgsrc, exploring
>> > the possibility to offer the upstream choice we provide (use curl, 
>> > or recommended: gnurl).
>> 
>> I don't quite follow.  I think you are suggesting that people be able to
>> install this instead, so that things that depend on curl could have the
>> dependency satisfied by gnurl?  That typically requires support in a bl3
>> file for curl that checks some variable and depends on one or the other.
>
> Yes. Okay, thanks.
> Our buildsystem checks for curl or gnurl and prefers gnurl if both are 
> found.

But in pkgsrc, a package has to specify its dependencies, and the bl3
system ensures that only specified dependencies are available.

If you want gnunet-ish packages to explicitly depend on gnurl, and not
curl, and they will find gnurl ok, that's totally fine.

>> > There's an open question about ensuring that a GnuTLS built against
>> > libunbound (DANE) is used.
>
> Because I keep forgetting what we use this "optional, but highly recommended"
> dependency for I need to add it to the README of gnunet. So far I'd say we
> can live without DANE validation support for the moment.
> Ensuring was the wrong word, I just like to set defaults, as we have a
> variety of options for gnunet.

Sure, but the problem is that for a package that you want to depend on
for gnunet reasons, and other people want to use for other reasons, has
to have single default, and that has to be in the best interest of the
ensemble of users.  I certainly understand that choosing defaults is
very hard.