On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:36:01 -0400 (EDT), "Greg A. Woods" <woods@weird.com>
wrote:
> [ On Saturday, June 7, 2003 at 17:19:43 (-0400), James K. Lowden wrote:
> ]
> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:37:57 -0400 (EDT), "Greg A. Woods" wrote:
> > > Remember these variants are all about making it possible to build
> > > binary versions of packages that can be installed on systems without
> > > X11, 
> >
> > Is that true?  Isn't it the case that X may change a package's
> > dependencies?  
> 
> That may also be true, but it's only a side effect -- an important side
> effect to be sure, but not the most important issue.

I read an essay on drugs in Harper's last year that convinced me there's
no objective definition of "side effect".  A thing has effects.  Which
ones are "side" depends entirely on the desired outcome.  

I guess you're telling me these variants were invented to facilitate
building binary packages.  

> The only solution, which may, or may not, be possible, is to create yet
> another variant called the "-x11-noGTK" variant or "-noGTK" variant, as
> appropriate.  :-)

AIUI that's Jeremy's argument for "flavors" a la OpenBSD.  

Regards, 

--jkl