comments about meeting agenda

[Greg Troxel]

Sandro Santilli <strk at kbt.io> writes:

> (email is more accessible for everyone, compared with meetings, I'd
> like to have more of email and less meetings)

agreed

> We discussed this at the meeting and we agreed we're happy with
> packagers providing separate packages for SFCGAL and Raster
> extensions. We didn't mention at the meeting but I'm also happy with
> separate postgis topology package.

So one can build postigs, with the sfcgal dependency not installed, and
get a postgis extension, and then later, with the sfcgal dependency
installed/present, and build *just* the postgis-sfcgal extension, and
when both packages are installed all works as the user expects?

I ask because there is often a linuxy assumption that package builds are
a heavyweight process that first requires the union of the deps to be
installed, builds everything, and then arranges the installed files into
separate packages.  This assumption is invalid for at least pkgsrc, and
I would expect it to be invalid for any other packaging system where the
point is eo enable people to build packages, including on low-resource
machines and odd cpu archidtgectures, rather than to provide binary
packages to people who are both incapable of compilation and running a
monoculturish CPU type.





> Even if small, at least you save the space taken by all those silly
> upgrade script symlinks (assuming they remain symlinks upon
> packaging).

Those really aren't a big deal.   It's much more about depending on
additional packages.