The ports-system and userland in general.

[Jasse Jansson]

On Dec 17, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Weapon of Mass Deduction wrote:

 For binary packages: Always have a minimal build, as well a typical
build ("Surely, *everyone* wants OpenGL support in their xmms...").
 For "some compiling required" packages: Have minimal and typical
configurations that can be selected, as well as letting the user
customize.  And list options relevant for the package!  (with/out 
X11,
Truetype ...)  I'm thinking maybe checkboxes?
Well, that could a be realized with pkgsrc and its likes. But, as I
already wrote in my posting before this one, it is merely a problem
of the software packages of today that they leave no clear 
separation of
compilation and configuration. Which makes it, as far as I can tell,
impossible to do a 'minimal build' on the usual, fully compiled 
binary
packages.
  Well, it can sort of be accomplished with pkgsrc.  Before the 
configure
step, you'll usually get an on-screen message saying "The following 
flags
may affect the build of this package; USE_X11", or something similar,
scrolling by.  I think the ports system is better in this regard, 
with the
menu thingy that some packages gives you.
Yes, but please discern all aspects *strictly*. The configure step you 
write of, is a step *only* applicable to building-processes, not the 
installation of binary packages.

Also, I reminded of the fact that it is a problem of the software 
packages *themselves*. They shouldn't require users to compile-in 
configuration options. So, its not our task, in a way.
While you are at it, figure out how to get rid of those configuration 
menues
in the middle of a build. I think it happens when a dependency is being
built. Kinda annoying to check out the computer a few hours later
just to find it idle and waiting for me to press a key.

    Jasse -- Authorized Stealth Oracle