Yes, subpackages would be nice.. but pacman isn't designed to split
packages while building.. so it will be a problem for maintainers. I'd
really like to see pacman (rather makepkg) be able to build split
packages. I whole heartedly welcome that feature in the build system.
It will attract more ppl for packaging too.
On Apr 10, 2005 6:02 PM, J�rgen H�tzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the above thread about "removed docs" made me muse about it: sub-packages.
> Even RedHat/Fedora builds a sendmail-docs sub-package (because they know
> even the docs wouldn't help most administrators if they run into m4
> errors?).
>
> But sub-packages are useful for dynamic extensions too. Look at the PHP
> PKGBUILD:
>
> depends=('openssl' 'libjpeg' 'freetype2' 'libpng' 'pam' \
> 'gdbm' 'libxml2' 'openldap' 'ncurses' 'curl' 'libxslt')
> makedepends=('apache' 'mysql' 'imap' 'postgresql' 'bzip2' 'smtp-server' \
> 'gd' 'fam' 'sqlite3' 'unixodbc')
>
> 99.9% of people just don't need openldap or ncurses extensions. Just as
> 99.9% don't need sendmail docs. Sub-packages would reduce runtime
> dependencies for the core PHP binary package and would allow smaller
> installations. With more and more PHP extensions to arise, more and more
> people want them included in the PKG. This will lead to a big-bloat PHP
> package (when not using sub-packages). What do you think?
>
> J�rgen
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>
--
Vinay S Shastry
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
