Re: Options vs. Binary packages

["Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost>]

> I was wondering lately wether it was sensible to weaken the doctrine
> of using the build configuration defaults from upstream such that
> options preventing the package from being made available via FTP are
> excluded.
> Without looking any further, gnome and mplayer come to mind, which
> are certainly popular and are currently not installable from the 
> official binary package repositories. 

This has been brought up a few times. But nothing has happened.

Yes. We should never have an available package require unavailable 
dependency.

May I commit this patch for mplayer? (I did this yesterday.)

It has been noted many times that the codecs included are good enough.

Index: mplayer-share/options.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pkgsrc/multimedia/mplayer-share/options.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -u -r1.33 options.mk
--- mplayer-share/options.mk    9 Sep 2008 01:11:53 -0000       1.33
+++ mplayer-share/options.mk    18 Sep 2008 16:11:12 -0000
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
 PKG_SUPPORTED_OPTIONS+= mplayer-runtime-cpudetection
 .endif
 .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "i386"
-PKG_SUPPORTED_OPTIONS+= mplayer-default-cflags mplayer-win32
+PKG_SUPPORTED_OPTIONS+= mplayer-default-cflags
 .endif
 .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "i386" || ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "powerpc" || \
     ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "alpha"

Also I will bump PKGREVISION for gmplayer, mencoder, mplayer and 
mplayer-share. Do those sound correct?