* Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/17/10, Sebastian Kayser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In addition to this package I would like to provide a postfix_simple > > package which is a feature-stripped version without a big dependency > > chain. Similar to what Ihsan provides on his own [1]. > > > > Are there any objections to or thoughts on this? The GAR recipe [2] > > already supports building this alternative package by setting > > 'BUILDTYPE=simple' on the commandline, so it's just a matter of running > > the build twice. > > > > I think it's a great idea. Just please allow the two packages to > co-exist, rather than conflicting with each other. > There's more than one way to handle the layout thereof; completely > separate trees, or "alternatives" based binary overlays, or possibly > something else entirely. (lazyloading the libs, and not > force-depending on them?) > Please pick whatever method you find least offensive :-)
Honestly, the postfix build recipe is already huge and if possible, I would like to refrain from introducing any additional complexity. What exactly are we trying to solve by not conflicting packages? Allowing to pkg-get -i all? If so, could this be rethought and tackled differently? Sebastian _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
