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

[Julio Merino <jmmv84%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Jens Rehsack 
<rehsack%googlemail.com@localhost> wrote:
> 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?

No no... all those names I listed were just alternative names for a
single package.  I didn't want to make up my mind with any specific
name, so I just threw a bunch of them in the email!

-- 
Julio Merino