On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:32 +0200, J�rgen H�tzel 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�rgenThe idea really seems to go against the whole simplicity of the thing. Once someone did make patches to split packages, but they weren't accepted. There are no plans to create multiple packages from a single PKGBUILD. We'd have to change way too much logic. *Everything* assumes there's one package per PKGBUILD. Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
