[M3devel] package groups question

[Jay K]

Nobody is going to make you install Xorg.
 
 - we only have X clients, no dependencies on an X server 
 
 
 - if we just omit any dependencies and leave the obvious errors to occur if you happen to run those binaries (unable to find libX11.so...) that's not terrible imho. 
 Granted that might be a little unfriendly to people who actually want to run..uh..formsedit, and don't yet have X client libraries and are willing to install them if only it is suggested to them..
 
 
Keep in mind that Olaf isn't building .debs and .rpms, just these .tar.gz files, that, indeed, have no stated dependencies -- leading to exactly what I said, no suggestion to install anything else, leaving forsmedit et. al. to fail to launch.
 
 
Are their tools to turn dynamic link dependencies into package dependencies??
 
 
 - Jay


----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:03:18 -0400
> From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] package groups question
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:51:41PM -0700, jay.krell at cornell.edu wrote:
>> | From what I've gleaned in the discussions and the current
>> documentation, I think most everyone has settled on the idea of having
>> 2 "binary" distributions for this release: "min" and "std".
>>>
>>
>> Really? How about just "std" and don't even label it as such? How many
>> expert users are clamoring for "min"?
>>
>> There was actually a push for several non overlaping package sets and
>> Olaf did work for that. But I'm not sure that is worth it.
>
> The packages probably shouldn't overlap (at least if we want them to be
> adopted by Linux distributions, whose installers know about package
> dependencies)
>
> But there are packages that should be optional. There's no way I'm
> going to be able to install Xorg on a text-only machine just so I can
> install cm3 because, say, Trestle is part of the standard package and
> it's compiled for X.
>
> -- hendrik