* Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 17.08.2010 um 19:13 schrieb Sebastian Kayser: > > * 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. > > I don't think you see how easy this really is: You already did the > hard work of adding a "switch": just add > EXTRA_MODULATORS = BUILDTYPE > MODULATIONS_BUILDTYPE = simple complex > and do add a couple of lines for alternatives switching. It is really > easy. I can do this if you want. It is even simpler than mutt, because > mutt has two different flavors with B -> A and B' -> A whereas you would > have CSWpostfix-full -> CSWpostfix with CSWpostfix containing everything > and CSWpostfix-full just the enhanced binary and extra dependencies. > > You may want to look at mutt as reference, although your case is probably > even simpler: > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/browser/csw/mgar/pkg/mutt/trunk/Makefile > > > What exactly are we trying to solve by not conflicting packages? > > You can't know this - I plan to auto-install all generated packages > into an extra experimental zone and conflicting packages would make > this harder than necessary. > > Additionally, with the alternatives approach you could start with > CSWpostfix and work with it. If you need more features you can > just install CSWpostfix-feature and just use the new things > without ugly deinstall - reinstall.
Thanks for the input. For now, I will aim to release the package as is, i.e. no simplified package. Further down the road, making CSWpostfix a reduced package might cause hickups. What about the ppl who expect CSWpostfix to be the full featured package?. I rather thought about making the CSWpostfix the full package, and CSWpostfix-simple the reduced one. But from what I understand that shouldn't make much of a difference. Sebastian _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
