On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 18:12:15 -0500 Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Christopher Berardi > <cbera...@natoufa.com>wrote: > > (n+2) Have a compile-time configuration option to choose what to > > build into fossil. For example, maybe I just want the 'core' > > vcs without the wiki, ui, or bug-tracking. Or, maybe I just > > want the vcs and the bug-tracking, but not the wiki or ui > > (though, in this scenario, tickets may need some way to be > > handled sans the web ui). By default, it would build everything > > like it does now, but a user could opt-out of certain elements. > > Note, this whole idea assumes that the different elements that > > make up fossil are not too tightly coupled ... but, if they > > _are_, we might wonder whether or not that is a good thing to > > begin with. > Why is it important to you to have an executable that doesn't support the > feature you don't use? Can't you simply not use the unwanted features even > if they are included in the build?
The "if you don't use it costs nothing" meme is wrong, and needs to die: http://blog.mired.org/2011/09/myth-of-costs-nothing.html That said, I don't think splitting up fossil's functionality is a good use of time - the default build is reasonably small and provides an excellent set of functionality. But if someone who feels otherwise provided a patch for it, I'd certainly be for accepting it, with the caveat that non-default builds aren't necessarily tested. <mike -- Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
