David Fang wrote: <snip> > There will be no dependencies between graphviz variants. graphviz-base > (whatever we name it) will have to conflict/replace other sibling > variants *unless* there is an easy and reliable way to separate out a > plug-in-only build/package (not via split-off b/c that would still > bring in all the optional deps). (Unpack the whole thing and rebuild, > but strip out files already installed by the -base package?) That's one way, yeah.
We do that for svn, because the normal build tries to build all of the bindings as well, and people were getting miffed about having to have X11 installed for the command-line client. :-) (because it built the python bindings). We also do that for other packages that would normally build python and perl bindings so that those can be set up according to Fink policy, rather than installed in whatever arbitrary location the package would place them. And I do that for doc packages that use tetex to build the documents, because that seems like extra overhead. > >> Does X11 only play a role in the plugins? If so, then something like >> >> graphviz-base >> graphviz-plugins-nox | graphviz-plugins >> >> would be appropriate in that case, and a "graphviz | graphviz-nox" >> bundle package to depend on both the -base and -plugins. > > I *believe* that the language plug-ins are orthogonal to the x11 > features. The plug-ins are for accessing the internals of graphviz > through some API. (I can't say with 100% certainty because I haven't > used them.) So technically, there could exist an x11 version without > language bindings, which would make a two-level variant (4 > combinations) more appropriate. > > I can see that there is quite a bit of work to do on this. > Should I try to make all such revisions in one shot? or perhaps do > this more incrementally, starting with just the -nox variant, and then > work on plug-ins in the next revision? What makes more sense? > > Fang > > David Fang > http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/ > http://www.achronix.com/ > It might be easier to have two package descriptions: graphviz | graphviz-nox graphviz-plugins with the latter Depending on either of the former variants. That's a little more maintainer labor, but on the other hand you avoid having essentially identical 'graphviz-plugins' and 'graphviz-nox-plugins' packages. (or whatever they wind up being called). -- Alexander Hansen Fink User Liaison ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
