Re: X support, and other alternate configurations

[Gordon Sadler <gbsadler1@ispchannel.com>]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 01:01:48AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>   5.8 Programs for the X Window System 
> 
>   Programs that may be configured with support for the X Window System
>   must be configured to do so and must declare any package dependencies
>   necessary to satisfy their runtime requirements when using the X
>   Window System, unless the package in question is of standard or higher
>   priority, in which case X-specific binaries may be split into a
>   separate package, or alternative versions of the package with X
>   support may be provided.
> 
<SNIP>
>   * No X-less binary may be provided.
>   * An X-less binary may be provided, but it must go into a package with
>     one of the X-dependent front ends. Thus, either an arbitrary
>     X-dependent front end must be picked to accompany it (which would be
>     odd, I think), or else all the front ends must go into the one
>     package (including emacs, which is a pretty vast wodge of
>     dependencies for a humble talk client).
> 
> Is the intent really to forbid multiple front ends to programs like
> gnutalk from being split into separate packages?
<SNIP>

I'm no expert, but check the vim package collection by Wichert
Akkerman. From that and other packages with similar multiple choices, I
would say if they are small, lump them together if possible. If they
conflict (only one at a time makes sense), then separate them but build
all/most from same source if at all possible.

Gordon Sadler