On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:07:51PM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > Roland Smith <rsm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:09:34PM +0100, Michel Talon wrote: > > > > > occur, a port maintainer should only include the *strict minimum* > > > dependencies necessary to make the port work, it is not his job to include > > > the whole kitchen sink of dependencies that could be useful in some cases. > > > > So you would advocate to set all options to off be default? Why not submit a > > PR to that effect? > > _I_ would suggest that it might make good sense to have as many as _three_ > choices of binary installations for ports with 'lots' (FSVO 'lots' :) of > dependencies -- a 'bare minimums' working version, a 'typical' version, and > an 'including the kitchen sink' version.
It would also hugely increase the complexity of the packages system. Imagine that a "bare minimum" version of package X requires the 'kitchen sink' version of package Y? Unless you can enforce that "bare minimum" versions should only require other "bare minimum" versions, this will get ugly fast. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
pgp7YjBElW9ml.pgp
Description: PGP signature