[csw-maintainers] Updated postfix packages (2.7.1) in experimental/, testing appreciated

[Sebastian Kayser]

* Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Am 17.08.2010 um 19:13 schrieb Sebastian Kayser:
> > * Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/17/10, Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> In addition to this package I would like to provide a postfix_simple
> >>> package which is a feature-stripped version without a big dependency
> >>> chain. Similar to what Ihsan provides on his own [1].
> >>> 
> >>> Are there any objections to or thoughts on this? The GAR recipe [2]
> >>> already supports building this alternative package by setting
> >>> 'BUILDTYPE=simple' on the commandline, so it's just a matter of running
> >>> the build twice.
> >> 
> >> I think it's a great idea. Just please allow the two packages to
> >> co-exist, rather than conflicting with each other.
> >> There's more than one way to handle the layout thereof; completely
> >> separate trees, or "alternatives" based binary overlays, or possibly
> >> something else entirely. (lazyloading the libs, and not
> >> force-depending on them?)
> >> Please pick whatever method you find least offensive :-)
> > 
> > Honestly, the postfix build recipe is already huge and if possible, I
> > would like to refrain from introducing any additional complexity.
> 
> I don't think you see how easy this really is: You already did the
> hard work of adding a "switch": just add
>   EXTRA_MODULATORS = BUILDTYPE
>   MODULATIONS_BUILDTYPE = simple complex
> and do add a couple of lines for alternatives switching. It is really
> easy. I can do this if you want. It is even simpler than mutt, because
> mutt has two different flavors with B -> A and B' -> A whereas you would
> have CSWpostfix-full -> CSWpostfix with CSWpostfix containing everything
> and CSWpostfix-full just the enhanced binary and extra dependencies.
> 
> You may want to look at mutt as reference, although your case is probably
> even simpler:
>   http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/browser/csw/mgar/pkg/mutt/trunk/Makefile
> 
> > What exactly are we trying to solve by not conflicting packages?
> 
> You can't know this - I plan to auto-install all generated packages
> into an extra experimental zone and conflicting packages would make
> this harder than necessary.
> 
> Additionally, with the alternatives approach you could start with
> CSWpostfix and work with it. If you need more features you can
> just install CSWpostfix-feature and just use the new things
> without ugly deinstall - reinstall.

Thanks for the input. For now, I will aim to release the package as is,
i.e. no simplified package.

Further down the road, making CSWpostfix a reduced package might cause
hickups. What about the ppl who expect CSWpostfix to be the full
featured package?. I rather thought about making the CSWpostfix the full
package, and CSWpostfix-simple the reduced one. But from what I
understand that shouldn't make much of a difference.

Sebastian