>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 01:43 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: > >>Gordon Messmer wrote: >>> >>>On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote: >> >>>>* Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be >>>>carefully designed, I think. >> >>I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present >>format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just >>this extreme simplicity of the format of the info files. If you >>complicate this, like with XML where you need special tools for editing, >>or with rpm which is much more complex, you will loose many of the >>package contributors. I don't mean you shouldn't add (carefully >>selected) additional features, but please keep the simple human readable >>and writable text format. > >Quite frankly, the current format isn't flexible enough. Some sort >of modules/variants support is really needed, if only because all of >the -nox and -osx and -whatever packages are going to start >cluttering the list of packages, which will make it harder to find >the package you want, etc. > >Another reason for modules/variants support: I am in the middle of >building GRASS for the umpteenth time so that I can get as many of >its modules into the GRASS package as possible. (On my computer, at >least, the GRASS package in CVS doesn't actually build the >PostgreSQL or ODBC modules. >) It takes two or more hours to build GRASS (with nice -n -20, at >that) with all of its modules. Let's say someone doesn't want/need >PostgreSQL support in GRASS. Should I create a grass-pgsql package? >What about grass-atlas, grass-odbc, grass-tcltk, grass-gl, etc? With >modules, I could create a GRASS package and bundle a bunch of >optional modules into it.
While I see your point (and agree with it), remember that before you add a package for submission or commit it, you'll have to test each of the different variants, to ensure that there aren't any apparent problems with the package and its modules/variants. (Having the support just makes it easier for the user, and as you said, reduces the clutter.) > >I have to admit, simplicity is compelling. I really like how easy it >is to write an .info file. However, I think that XML can be almost >as simple, especially if the file format works with >/Developer/Applications/PropertyListEditor.app. > >Just my 2 cents. > >Daniel > _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
