On 19 May 2006, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I have a simpler question: is there any plan to make installing
xbase a requirement in the foreseeable future?
> 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 :(
So what you're saying here is that installing 30MB of xbase without
the user requesting it is acceptable, but making an install script some
30 bytes larger isn't, right?
Regards,
Liviu Daia
--
Dr. Liviu Daia http://www.imar.ro/~daia
