Re: Package split or package options?

To: Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>
Subject: Re: Package split or package options?
From: Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-pkg%mumble.net@localhost>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:34:36 +0000

 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:02:25 +0100
 From: Edgar =?iso-8859-1?B?RnXf?= <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>
 So, should I use package options controlling which of the three (or four) 
 components gets built (less overhead, less likely to accidently install 
 a client, but no server) or split it into three packages plus a 
 nss-pam-ldapd/Makefile.common (better for binary packages)?
Please split it into separate packages. That way, after I have done
my bulk build and partially deployed some packages, I don't need to
restart from the beginning when I realize I wanted to add a different
feature -- I just have to run pkg_add.

References:
- Package split or package options?
  - From: Edgar Fuß

Prev by Date: Re: Package split or package options?
Next by Date: binary pkg "variants" ? [was: Re: Package split or package options?]
Previous by Thread: Re: Package split or package options?
Next by Thread: bison on Leopard
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index