Hi there, Jürgen pointed out possible problems due to the fact that gtk2 is now in opt: Dependencies are not listed anymore. There are basically two ways out of this: - every ports mentions all dependencies of gtk2 itself - creating a meta port which lists the dependencies of gtk2; this port can be listed as dependency then, avoiding the above. It's pretty obvious that the second one is less error-prone and therefore our choice :-) Are there any comments or objections? Regards, Johannes P.S. an open question is to determine what files this meta port installs (as pkgmk won't create an empty package); /usr/share/clc/gtk2-meta as an empty text file? ideas anyone? -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Biel, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:26:13 +0200 Johannes Winkelmann <jw@tks6.net> wrote:
Hi there,
Jürgen pointed out possible problems due to the fact that gtk2 is now in opt: Dependencies are not listed anymore. There are basically two ways out of this: - every ports mentions all dependencies of gtk2 itself - creating a meta port which lists the dependencies of gtk2; this port can be listed as dependency then, avoiding the above.
It's pretty obvious that the second one is less error-prone and therefore our choice :-) Are there any comments or objections?
I support the second option too, with a couple of considerations: 1. The ideal solution would be to have dependencies listed also in /base and /opt. I know we discussed the thing a hundred times or so, but I'm still think that: - This wouldn't undermine the "keep it simple" idea: standard pkgtools will simply ignore deps. - It would be nice to have the same Pkgfile format for all ports. Of course we can't force Per to change his mind about dependencies in Pkgfile, anyway we (I?) could offer Per's an hand sending him the opt and/or base ports with dependencies line included. (just in case he's interested) That could be a lot of work, but I think that it would be quite a one-time effort, since /base and /opt collections are subjected to less changes than ports in CLC. 2. If we go with metaports, I think we should define a standard to handle such a thing. Ie: fake files to install, location (as you pointed out in the PS). I suggest /usr/share/metaports or something similar (just in case one would create a metaport not strictly clc-related). Another think to consider is uninstall behaviour: pkgrm gtk2-meta would not remove gtk2 itself? If we have a good specification of metaports, these could be very useful for installing certain group of packages, let's say again kde or gnome. I've put up a page regarding metaports some time ago at http://www.varlock.com. Unfortunately I've been quite busy this summer, and I got some exam on September, so I couldn't and can't play too much(at least for the moment) with metaports and other projects. I realize that I spent a lot of words for a small problem, these are only suggestions in case other people too would prefer to implement a complete metaport solution instead of using metaports only as a quick-hack.
Regards, Johannes
Bye, Simone
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Simone Rota wrote: [...]
I support the second option too, with a couple of considerations:
1. The ideal solution would be to have dependencies listed also in /base and /opt. I know we discussed the thing a hundred times or so, but I'm still think that: - This wouldn't undermine the "keep it simple" idea: standard pkgtools will simply ignore deps. - It would be nice to have the same Pkgfile format for all ports.
I support his Simone's opinion. All other suggestions sound like workarounds, not like real solutions. A depends line in base is not necessary in my eyes, because base is installed everywhere. But opt is definitly optional and a user cannot read out of a Pkgfile, on which other package it depends. So without a depends line the opt Pkgfiles will depart from the keep-it-simple concept. With a depends line it becomes even simpler. pkgtools can ignore it. Just a comment for the installer (and of course prt-get). Regards Martin -- martin opel / fachbereich informatik - fachhochschule regensburg / email: martin.opel@informatik.fh-regensburg.de / web: http://rfhs8012.fh-regensburg.de/~opel/ / phone: +49 941 943-1336, fax: +49 941 943-1426
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 01:01:15PM +0200, Martin Opel wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Simone Rota wrote:
[...]
I support the second option too, with a couple of considerations:
1. The ideal solution would be to have dependencies listed also in /base and /opt. I know we discussed the thing a hundred times or so, but I'm still think that: - This wouldn't undermine the "keep it simple" idea: standard pkgtools will simply ignore deps. - It would be nice to have the same Pkgfile format for all ports.
I support his Simone's opinion. All other suggestions sound like workarounds, not like real solutions. yep, me too.
A depends line in base is not necessary in my eyes, because base is installed everywhere. The assumption "base is installed" simplifies the whole thing a lot, and it's a must for me to exclude references to base packages.
But opt is definitly optional and a user cannot read out of a Pkgfile, on which other package it depends. So without a depends line the opt Pkgfiles will depart from the keep-it-simple concept. With a depends line it becomes even simpler. pkgtools can ignore it. Just a comment for the installer (and of course prt-get). That's the point, we need not much more as we have already, only a simple comment line in the opt ports, but _not_ a "official" dependency system.
Greetings Jürgen -- juergen.daubert@t-online.de
participants (4)
-
Johannes Winkelmann -
juergen.daubert＠t-online.de -
Martin Opel -
Simone Rota