Hi Jon, Am 16.08.2011 um 14:05 schrieb Jonathan Craig: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I suggest adding alternatives with nginx as base package and nginx_passenger >> as >> add-on which takes precedence on the binary and depends on ruby etc. > > So we would have a package that provides function set 'A' as a base > package and then create a package that provides function set 'A' + 'B' > and uses alternatives to take precedence. The benefit being that the > base package avoids a dependency on ruby?
Yes. > Would it be better to roll > the 'a' + 'b' functionality into the base and create a shell package > that appends the ruby dependency but doesn't actually make a binary > change. That will probably not work as the binaries in the base package link to dependent libraries not installed. It would also complicate checking if dependencies are entered correctly. > The benefit of this would be just one actual binary to build > and troubleshoot. True, but for the above reason it usually doesn't work this way. Best regards -- Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
