On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 02:43:36AM +0200, viq wrote: > Sorry if it sounds otherwise, I have no intention of telling anyone what to > do > and how, just sharing some idea I had that could possibly satisfy both sides > of the argument, and maybe allow to avoid bi-weekly reocurring question. > Seeing all those "why can't I compile port XX?" "install xbase" "but I don't > want to install X on my firewall/server/whatever" arguments - maybe it would > be possible to split xbase into xbase and xlibs packages, with the latter > having just some base libraries?
I wonder, if xbase were a port, would there have ever been a complaint? what I mean is, if 'make package' or pkg_add just worked, would anyone who has complained have even noticed/cared that xbase got installed? it seems that at least a few people who have complained are perfectly happy installing other stuff they don't really need. no, I'm not suggesting that xbase be a port; I'm just offering some perspective. as far as "biweekly question", that should be a clue that the people asking the question aren't doing their homework/paying attention (i.e. they probably would not have noticed/cared if xbase had been installed automatically anyway.) as far as making a new install set, that's a lot of continual work for very little gain. not to mention, it and would add more bytes of text to the installation scripts :( -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
