Alexander Strange wrote: > > Hey, this is a perfect example of why we should have this new .info > format :)
I rather think your answer an example for some misunderstanding that I can see in this whole excited discussion of new info file formats and package options: When Jeff says that he doesn't have the time to maintain all the possible options, then a new format would NOT help him. The problem is not that the "old" format requires you to have several info files, one for each option, and the "new" format would allow you to create all the options from just one info file. The problem is that you (the maintainer) have to maintain ALL the offered options. You have to configure them all and patch them all and compile them all and test them all, and this is completely independent of the format of the info file. I think in comparison of the work involved with porting and maintaining a package, the question whether you have one or several info files is a minor detail. Creating several info files that differ only by a few lines is a trivial thing that can be done instantly with any text editor. Well, with any text editor, as long as they remain simple text files, anyway. -- Martin > On Friday, January 18, 2002, at 09:09 PM, Jeff Whitaker wrote: > > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Alexander Strange wrote: > > > >> Side note: "pine" and "pine-ssl" have another difference: "pine-ssl" > >> uses openldap. This probably counts as a bug, but I'm not going to > >> complain, because openldap takes too long to compile and I don't use > >> it. :) > > > > It's not a bug, it's a decision. Would you rather have > > pine-ssl-openldap and pine-openldap packages? At some point it becomes > > ridiculous, and I just don't have time to maintain them all. _______________________________________________ Fink-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
