Jan Danielsson <jan.m.danielsson%gmail.com@localhost> writes: > I've been under the impression that a philosophy of pkgsrc is to not > change the defaults of packages, apart for adjusting for build > dependencies/features and locations. > > For instance: When I start vim on different linux distros with > different package managers, I never know how vim will behave, but when I > build vim from pkgsrc, it has behaved very much like when I build vim > from the official tarballs. > > A recent PR got me thinking; is the reason pkgsrc packages often tend > to look/feel/behave like the "default tarball" an explicit goal, or is > it just a side-effect of one or any of: > - too few maintainers to maintain a set of "pkgsrc style > configurations" for packages. > - it would be impossible to reach consensus for how the > pkgsrc-specific configurations should look, so no one has actually dared > to try. I'm not sure it's written down or everyone agrees 100%, but I basically view packaging as encapsulating the upstream build process and guidance. Often there are many optional depdendencies, and that leads to judgement about which ones are worth the bloat. But generally I don't think it's good to alter behaviors, other than security fixes.
Attachment:
pgpw3MNdhEG6T.pgp
Description: PGP signature