Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)

[asau-2]

Synopsis: add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: asau@...
State-Changed-When: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:18:43 +0000
State-Changed-Why:
The purpose of meta-packages is to allow easy installation,
when one doesn't care about the number of packages.
If you want fine tuning, use pkg_chk or create your private package.

[diro-2]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:18:44AM +0000, asau@... wrote:
> Synopsis: add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions
>
> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
> State-Changed-By: asau@...
> State-Changed-When: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:18:43 +0000
> State-Changed-Why:
> The purpose of meta-packages is to allow easy installation,
> when one doesn't care about the number of packages.
> If you want fine tuning, use pkg_chk or create your private package.

That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
going for here.

Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
difficulty understanding it.

[diro-2]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: diro@...
To: gnats-bugs@...
Cc: pkg-manager@..., pkgsrc-bugs@..., gnats-admin@...,
        asau@...
Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:31:35 -0500

 On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:18:44AM +0000, asau@... wrote:
 > Synopsis: add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions
 >
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > State-Changed-By: asau@...
 > State-Changed-When: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:18:43 +0000
 > State-Changed-Why:
 > The purpose of meta-packages is to allow easy installation,
 > when one doesn't care about the number of packages.
 > If you want fine tuning, use pkg_chk or create your private package.
 
 That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
 medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
 without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
 unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
 going for here.
 
 Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
 developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
 difficulty understanding it.
 

[obache]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "OBATA Akio" <obache@...>
To: gnats-bugs@...
Cc:
Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:57:23 +0900

 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro@...> wrote:
 
 >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
 >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
 >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
 >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
 >  going for here.
 
 Why not pkg_chk?
 What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package path to pkgchk.conf"?
 
 >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
 >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
 >  difficulty understanding it.
 
 FYI:
 http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
 

[Joerg Sonnenberger]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@...>
To: gnats-bugs@...
Cc:
Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:18:41 +0100

 On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:18:44AM +0000, asau@... wrote:
 > Synopsis: add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions
 >
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > State-Changed-By: asau@...
 > State-Changed-When: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:18:43 +0000
 > State-Changed-Why:
 > The purpose of meta-packages is to allow easy installation,
 > when one doesn't care about the number of packages.
 > If you want fine tuning, use pkg_chk or create your private package.
 
 Fully agreed. Most if not all mechanisms for automated builds allow the
 same, not just pkg_chk.
 
 Joerg
 

[diro-2]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:

> The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: "OBATA Akio" <obache@...>
> To: gnats-bugs@...
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:57:23 +0900
>
>  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro@...> wrote:
>  
>  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
>  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
>  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
>  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
>  >  going for here.
>  
>  Why not pkg_chk?
>  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package path to pkgchk.conf"?

Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have to
write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config files to
manage my packages.

 
>  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
>  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
>  >  difficulty understanding it.
>  
>  FYI:
>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html


I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in question is
of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything and
otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the idea
that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a number
of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?

--
!tr
--
Timothy Lee Roden
    Systems Administrator - Nixsys Public Access UNIX System
    http://nixsyspaus.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 8669 0AFC 2051 0C05 2D9C  FB9F D7F6 8838 73E8 BA22

[diro-2]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: diro@...
To: gnats-bugs@...
Cc: pkg-manager@..., gnats-admin@..., pkgsrc-bugs@...
Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:29:13 -0500

 On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.
 >
 > From: "OBATA Akio" <obache@...>
 > To: gnats-bugs@...
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
 > Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:57:23 +0900
 >
 >  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro@...> wrote:
 >  
 >  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
 >  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
 >  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
 >  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
 >  >  going for here.
 >  
 >  Why not pkg_chk?
 >  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package path to pkgchk.conf"?
 
 
 Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have to
 write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config files to
 manage my packages.
 
   
 >  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
 >  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
 >  >  difficulty understanding it.
 >  
 >  FYI:
 >  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
 
 
 I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in question is
 of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
 PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything and
 otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the idea
 that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a number
 of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?
 
 --
 !tr
 --
 Timothy Lee Roden
     Systems Administrator - Nixsys Public Access UNIX System
     http://nixsyspaus.org
 GPG Key fingerprint = 8669 0AFC 2051 0C05 2D9C  FB9F D7F6 8838 73E8 BA22
 

[Aleksej Saushev-2]

diro@... writes:

> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
>>  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro@...> wrote:
>>  
>>  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
>>  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
>>  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
>>  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
>>  >  going for here.
>>  
>>  Why not pkg_chk?
>>  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package path to pkgchk.conf"?
>
> Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have to
> write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config files to
> manage my packages.

I wonder how you deal with the need to maintain rc.conf, resolv.conf, ntp.conf
and a number of other configuration files in /etc instead of using single
registry database. Multiple confiration files should not be an issue already.

>>  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
>>  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
>>  >  difficulty understanding it.
>>  
>>  FYI:
>>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
>
> I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in question is
> of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
> PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything and
> otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the idea
> that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a number
> of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?

Your PR is more general, it affects more than this particular meta-package,
if you want to propose general way, it is better to discuss it on mailing list,
which is more convenient and more appropriate. As for now the discussion
is counter-productive: general consensus is what I said above, meta-packages
are here for no-configuration cases, there're more appropriate ways to
configure the set of installed packages.


--
HE CE3OH...

[Aleksej Saushev-2]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Aleksej Saushev <asau@...>
To: pkg-bug-handler@...
Cc: gnats-bugs@...,  pkg-manager@...,  gnats-admin@...,  pkgsrc-bugs@...
Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:28:14 +0300

 diro@... writes:
 
 > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
 >>  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro@...> wrote:
 >>  
 >>  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
 >>  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
 >>  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
 >>  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
 >>  >  going for here.
 >>  
 >>  Why not pkg_chk?
 >>  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package path to pkgchk.conf"?
 >
 > Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have to
 > write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config files to
 > manage my packages.
 
 I wonder how you deal with the need to maintain rc.conf, resolv.conf, ntp.conf
 and a number of other configuration files in /etc instead of using single
 registry database. Multiple confiration files should not be an issue already.
 
 >>  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
 >>  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
 >>  >  difficulty understanding it.
 >>  
 >>  FYI:
 >>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
 >
 > I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in question is
 > of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
 > PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything and
 > otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the idea
 > that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a number
 > of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?
 
 Your PR is more general, it affects more than this particular meta-package,
 if you want to propose general way, it is better to discuss it on mailing list,
 which is more convenient and more appropriate. As for now the discussion
 is counter-productive: general consensus is what I said above, meta-packages
 are here for no-configuration cases, there're more appropriate ways to
 configure the set of installed packages.
 
 
 --
 HE CE3OH...
 

[diro-2]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:05:03PM +0000, Aleksej Saushev wrote:

> The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: Aleksej Saushev <asau@...>
> To: pkg-bug-handler@...
> Cc: gnats-bugs@...,  pkg-manager@...,  gnats-admin@...,  pkgsrc-bugs@...
> Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:28:14 +0300
>
>  diro@... writes:
>  
>  > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
>  >>  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro@...> wrote:
>  >>  
>  >>  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
>  >>  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
>  >>  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
>  >>  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
>  >>  >  going for here.
>  >>  
>  >>  Why not pkg_chk?
>  >>  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package path to pkgchk.conf"?
>  >
>  > Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have to
>  > write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config files to
>  > manage my packages.
>  
>  I wonder how you deal with the need to maintain rc.conf, resolv.conf, ntp.conf
>  and a number of other configuration files in /etc instead of using single
>  registry database. Multiple confiration files should not be an issue already.

This discussion is about pkgsrc. Your analogy is weak at best. There is no
reason to use pkg_chk for this instance. We already have the options.mk
framework for this.
 

>  >>  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
>  >>  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
>  >>  >  difficulty understanding it.
>  >>  
>  >>  FYI:
>  >>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
>  >
>  > I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in question is
>  > of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
>  > PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything and
>  > otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the idea
>  > that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a number
>  > of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?
>  
>  Your PR is more general, it affects more than this particular meta-package,
>  if you want to propose general way, it is better to discuss it on mailing list,
>  which is more convenient and more appropriate. As for now the discussion
>  is counter-productive: general consensus is what I said above, meta-packages
>  are here for no-configuration cases, there're more appropriate ways to
>  configure the set of installed packages.

No, it's specific to this package. Please, review the title of the PR. However,
it could be applied to other packages. Having an empty PKG_OPTIONS for this
package default to building everything as it normally does is still a zero
configuration case. I'm not convinced there's a more appropriate way to make
this happen within the pkgsrc framework besides options.mk. If there were, i'm
sure you or someone would have named it by now. I'm not looking to take this to
the mailing list for discussion, as it is so simple that it doesn't really
require discussion and i'm surprised that it has actually generated so much
conversation.

[diro-2]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: diro@...
To: gnats-bugs@...
Cc: pkg-manager@..., gnats-admin@..., pkgsrc-bugs@...
Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:24:35 -0500

 On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:05:03PM +0000, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/42263; it has been noted by GNATS.
 >
 > From: Aleksej Saushev <asau@...>
 > To: pkg-bug-handler@...
 > Cc: gnats-bugs@...,  pkg-manager@...,  gnats-admin@...,  pkgsrc-bugs@...
 > Subject: Re: pkg/42263 (add PKG_OPTIONS to meta-pkgs/php5-extensions)
 > Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:28:14 +0300
 >
 >  diro@... writes:
 >  
 >  > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 12:00:07PM +0000, OBATA Akio wrote:
 >  >>  On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:01 +0900, <diro@...> wrote:
 >  >>  
 >  >>  >  That is exactly what i'm proposing:  an easier installation. There needs to be a
 >  >>  >  medium between "install fscking everything" and install what you want manually
 >  >>  >  without a) having to maintain a private package b) recommenting a Makefile upon
 >  >>  >  unpacking a new pkgsrc quarterly release. pkg_chk is also not the solution i'm
 >  >>  >  going for here.
 >  >>  
 >  >>  Why not pkg_chk?
 >  >>  What is the differ between "set module name to PKG_OPTION" and "set package path to pkgchk.conf"?
 >  >
 >  > Because i do not use pkg_chk. pkgchk.conf is another config file i'd have to
 >  > write and maintain when i already use mk.conf. I do not need two config files to
 >  > manage my packages.
 >  
 >  I wonder how you deal with the need to maintain rc.conf, resolv.conf, ntp.conf
 >  and a number of other configuration files in /etc instead of using single
 >  registry database. Multiple confiration files should not be an issue already.
 
 This discussion is about pkgsrc. Your analogy is weak at best. There is no
 reason to use pkg_chk for this instance. We already have the options.mk
 framework for this.
   
 >  >>  >  Also, please do not be in such a rush to close this PR. Allow some other
 >  >>  >  developers to view it first and see the value in this if you're having some
 >  >>  >  difficulty understanding it.
 >  >>  
 >  >>  FYI:
 >  >>  http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2008/06/29/msg007473.html
 >  >
 >  > I understand the initial discussion here; however, that package in question is
 >  > of four dependencies. meta-pkgs/php5-extensions is ~50. Why cannot an empty
 >  > PKG_OPTIONS for meta-pkgs/php5-extensions default to building everything and
 >  > otherwise could be set to build a few modules? Why are we holding onto the idea
 >  > that a meta-pkg is everything and cannot be tailored? There is already a number
 >  > of packages which work in a similar manner. Why not this one?
 >  
 >  Your PR is more general, it affects more than this particular meta-package,
 >  if you want to propose general way, it is better to discuss it on mailing list,
 >  which is more convenient and more appropriate. As for now the discussion
 >  is counter-productive: general consensus is what I said above, meta-packages
 >  are here for no-configuration cases, there're more appropriate ways to
 >  configure the set of installed packages.
 
 No, it's specific to this package. Please, review the title of the PR. However,
 it could be applied to other packages. Having an empty PKG_OPTIONS for this
 package default to building everything as it normally does is still a zero
 configuration case. I'm not convinced there's a more appropriate way to make
 this happen within the pkgsrc framework besides options.mk. If there were, i'm
 sure you or someone would have named it by now. I'm not looking to take this to
 the mailing list for discussion, as it is so simple that it doesn't really
 require discussion and i'm surprised that it has actually generated so much
 conversation.