Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi,
Lately, I'm having second thoughts whether it's a good idea to merge opt and contrib into one collection. Not to be missunderstood, I consider it very important to merge CVS repositories, and CRUX/CLC. But somehow I don't like the idea of having 5 window managers, MTA's, web servers and the like in opt.
I've been discussing this with Juergen quickly, and he seemed to agree to that consideration. My suggestion would be to keep a separate category, maybe called 'extra' or something like that, and allow maintainers to suggest ports for addition into opt. Those contrib ports which are currently included on the ISO would certainly make good candidates for that. In the end, we have a need for this distinction anyway, since we couldn't include 'opt' completely an ISO if it was merged with contrib. At CRUXCon 2004, we said we'd introduce a 'core group', marked with an attribute in the Pkgfile. To me, keeping a third collection seems very similar, but easier to understand for users.
We'd then have the following hierarchy: - base: ports required to run a crux system - opt: ports required depending on the use of the machine - extra: ports which replace ports from opt (function wise) or extend it
- contrib: user contributed ports
I agree with jdolan. I don't see a big issue in merging them since per already includes some contrib ports in ISO without including the whole ISO. I think the problem might be in some "core" dependencies: like openssl or openssh or xorg. But I think a good solution would be to move those to base. have base sort of be a default functioning system, but move all optional stuff: gtk group, etc.. etc.. to contrib. If that's not convenient, then why have extra in addition to opt? why not just keep opt the way it is? what's wrong with having "extra" ports on contrib the way it is now? Victor