On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:20:06AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> 
> > Thus spake Tomasz Luchowski
> > > Does anyone use uucp these days? I have never used it, and I like
> > > the idea of removing obsolete (at least from my point of view) software.
> >
> > I still use UUCP.  It is still an excellent mechanism for store and forward
> > type file transfers.  I even use it to transfer PAW information with a
> > major bank up here.  Lots of people use it over TCP/IP to transfer news.
> > There is definitely nothing obsolete about UUCP.
> >
> > However, if it was changed to a package I could still survive.  Does it
> > use a lot of resources in the system?  I would hate to see us having to
> > go into packages every time we needed to use a less used utility.  Disk
> > space is cheap these days.
> 
> I think the issue is not the footprint on the repository's server --
> moving it to pkgsrc would end up requiring a bigger footprint, anyway,
> because you'd still have the history in basesrc, plus you'd add a
> tarball to distfiles. The issue is that folks don't want to build and
> install it by default on their own systems (ditto for postfix, and a
> few other things).
> 
> There are lots of ways to accomplish that without moving the sources.
> We could simply provide a way to specify certain directories that
> aren't to be descended into. (See the discussion about EXCLUDE_SUBDIRS
> last August/September on tech-misc.)
> 
> Another way would be to create top level targets that only build and
> package a portion of the tree, like "make build-base build-mailers
> build-compilers package-base package-mailers package-compilers". "make
> build" and especially "make release" should do them all by default,
> but again, folks would want an easy way to specify the ones they want.
> 
> Frederick

See the *_SPECIFIC_PKGS definitions.

Regards,
Alistair