Re: Dependencies of meta-pkgs/gnome [was Re: Adding a gnome-lite package]

[Jens Rehsack <rehsack%googlemail.com@localhost>]

On 04/23/10 13:59, Julio Merino wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jens Rehsack<rehsack%googlemail.com@localhost> 
>  wrote:

> If all dependencies are optional, there is no point in having a meta
> package.

Fully agree (and that's why not proposed!).

> > But introducing 5 new packages which differ slightly wouldn't make sense to
> > me when 2 new packages and 2-3 options would do fine.
>
> Package options, specially those that change dependencies, are evil.

Finally - nearly all build time options change something in the 
dependencies. That's what they are made for.

I repeat: I do not see any reason for introducing a lot meta-pkgs:
- gnome-lite, ok
- gnome-pkgsrc, ok (even if gnome-NetBSD would match better)

But gnome-suggested or gnome-supported? Where does it end?

I don't think having a firefox option is reasonable - it wasn't my example. 
Much more: I don't think can choose from a bunch of window managers is 
reasonable. But I think, it's more reasonable having an option to choose a 
window manager than having a new meta-pkg for it.

I'm not familiar with packaging gnome, what makes it hard for me giving good 
examples.

Best,
Jens