Re: [ITP] mtr

[Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>]

On 2019-07-22 05:36, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 21/07/2019 19:27, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> On 2019-07-21 12:10, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-21 06:59, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what you intend, so either (i) explicitly configure --without-gtk, or
>>>> (ii) add the needed gtk devel package(s) to DEPENDS.
> 
> My fractured grammar probably didn't help make clear that I consider either of
> these alternatives valid.

So both would be good, as folks like Henning would not need to drag X into their
installs, and others on Win x86 running X could select and use the GUI.

> From what you write, it seems you really intended to omit gtk support, so I'd
> suggest you consider alternative (i) i.e. explicitly configure --without-gtk,
> and potentially revisit this when someone demonstrates a need for mtr with gtk.
> 
>> Built with gtk2.0-devel installed now requires libgdk_pixbuf2.0_0 libglib2.0_0
>> libgtk2.0_0 which probably drags a lot of X in.
>> Is there a standard way to offer subpackages with and without X in these cases?
> 
> I guess you could add a mtr-gtk subpackage, to contain a mtr built with gtk
> support.
> 
> Unfortunately cygport can't create subpackages with conflicting files, and we
> can't mark packages as conflicting (yet), so you'd need to rename the mtr
> executable in that subpackage (e.g. as mtr-gtk)

What about mtr-ncurses and mtr-gtk packages and primary mtr... exes?
I have to look into whether there is any significant difference between
mtr-packet exes also requiring renaming.
Then a postinstall symlink(s) creation or update-alternatives run to base names.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.