Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:40:07 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall install.c installUpgrade Message-ID: <20020404194007.A83785@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020404093657.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:36:57AM -0500 References: <200204040851.g348p0nF004035@aldan.algebra.com> <XFMail.20020404093657.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:36:57AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > I think a better comparison might be if you think about some of our current > ports. We have things like vim and vim-lite. Imagine having a single vim > package (so you don't have to duplicate all the share data) whose install > script installs either the big vim binary or the smaller binary (both binaries > are in the package, hence a "fat" package as I mentioned earlier) depending on > if the system has X installed, user preference, etc. Since we would only need > 1 copy of stuff that is now duplicated, we could actually end up with a net > space gain as well as solving the problem of how to handle having 10 versions > of a package for all the various WITH/WITHOUT combinations. You are impliying the reason we have vim and vim-lite the way we do (and ghostscript w/o X11 and with); is due to using tar vs. zip. You are toally wrong. We can easily do the same with pkg's today. What IS missing is the makefile bits to build things the way you invision. Just how would you create vim.zip ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020404194007.A83785>