* Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-24 23:55]: > Danek Duvall wrote: > > With recursive uninstall working again in my workspace, I've discovered > > that even removing a leaf package likely requires a recursive uninstall, > > because slim_install has a "required" dependency on it. > > > > That leads me to believe that slim_install is doing the wrong thing with > > its dependencies. They should probably be optional instead of required. > > Of course, then you actually need some mechanism to make installation of > > slim_install actually install all its dependencies. We have the notion of > > a "require optional" policy, but weak support for it. > > > > My idea was to have a commandline flag for install that would turn on > > following optional dependencies just for packages specified on the > > commandline (optional dependencies specified further down in the tree would > > respect only the image-wide policy). > > > > Unfortunately, that has the downside that for people actually wanting to > > install slim_install or redistributable (or, more pointedly, gcc-dev or > > ss-dev, which would naturally have the same change made to them), they'd > > have to know to specify the magic flag, or they'd just get a single, > > seemingly empty package installed. > > > > Any thoughts? > > I would rather not break the convenience or ease of "pkg install ss-dev". > > New users shouldn't have to know about a special flag or any options to > get that to work right.
You're both right. Both incorporating and group packages should have optional dependencies, but group packages should have a package tag that says, "for install, include optional dependencies", so that users (and GUIs) don't need to remember some variable flag. Perhaps pkg.policy.install_optional? - Stephen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
