-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Martin Costabel wrote:
<snip>
I always thought this is a bad idea that invites to produce a lot of non-tested packages. Why not just make two clean info files?
Because it is a matter of scalability. When you have a piece of software that supports many variants like
with ssl, without ssl, with blah, without blah. with x , without x and so on, a maintainer cannot be expected to take care of 3 separate files just to take care of one software piece.
Furthermore it is a matter of bandwidth and being considerate toward our user community. To some it does make a difference how much data they blast over the wire and not duplicating such fields as Description or the like also keeps the database smaller.
Furthermore the amount of data that gets read during a fink index or a fink info is a lot smaller. All in all I can understand your concerns, but they have nothing to do with variants themselves, it is only a matter of introducing a strict and proper package testing procedure.
My general advise would be to acquire a G5 or similar machine where selected people can have shell access. This machine would do nothing else but compile packages and their variants.
- -d
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFAdITtPMoaMn4kKR4RA9b/AJ91mxcCFVD2PPlbUcBKBay0+9aNOQCfQkJe hkQVmvUiKTSBBRHLo6UyQtE= =FOwE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
