Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com> writes:

> Pierre Neidhardt <ambrevar@gmail.com> writes:
>
> What do you think about ‘inxi’ package with inputs, which are only
> required to run it,
> and another ‘inxi-full’ package, which will inherit ‘inxi’, but with
> additional inputs?

My first thought is that it sounds like a good alternative to the
concept of optional dependencies.

I like the idea.

It also means that the `inxi` package cannot patch inxi with full store
paths.

Any suggestion other than making leaving ENV{'PATH'} untouched and
setting @paths to it?

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt

There is more to life than increasing its speed.
		-- Mahatma Gandhi