Regarding package options and split packages (was: Re: devel/git and devel/git-base are confusing)

[Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Hello Mayuresh,

Mayuresh writes:
>
> - Are we ok going the rpm way? Binary first culture?
>
> - If rpm build system (don't know how many people have the habit to build
>   from sources among rpm uses) supports options, that's a good thing. The
>   worry here is pkgsrc discouraging use of options.
>
>   Question is not about pkgsrc as a framework supports options or not.
>   It's about whether pkgsrc packages are encouraged to utilize them or are
>   they discouraged. As the replies on git suggest, it seems it's being
>   discouraged. That's the worry.
>

Yes, having split packages instead of options is usually better.

The pkgsrc guide summarize that pretty well:

 There are two broad classes of behaviors that one might want to control via
 options. One is whether some particular feature is enabled in a program that
 will be built anyway, often by including or not including a dependency on some
 other package. The other is whether or not an additional program will be built
 as part of the package. Generally, it is better to make a split package for
 such additional programs instead of using options, because it enables binary
 packages to be built which can then be added separately.

Please give a look to chapter 18 of The pkgsrc guide for more
rationale other cases regarding that.