> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:18:22 +0000
> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
> To: BLFS Development List <blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] Proposed changes
>
.
.
> > > (More generally, what the 'Proposed changes' and 'Discussion about
> > > archiving
> > > more GNOME packages' threads from Oct/Nov, flag up again is that handling
> > > of
> > > deps-trees is still not very rigourous or automated in blfs.)
> >
> > Dependencies are definitely not automated. How would you do that?
> >
>
>
> I mean parsing of the blfs xml tree to build a deps-tree: but that of course
> still depends on accuracy of info in said tree; and given current & ongoing
> inaccuracies, said parser still needs some 'overrides' that augments/
> corrects-for the xml input.
>
>
> Was not meaning (full) auto-extraction from source-packages. (( Although
> there are
> some inklings of such formal structure specs starting to be included in some
> source packages, it's still early days (& there'll, if ever, likely be the
> usual
> 15 different 'standards'). In the meantime, for packages with 'configure
> --help',
> auto-parsing that can be a good start and cross-check; but of course still
> needs
> augmented with the still-usual other sources of info - e.g. package README,
> INSTALL, &c, plus user experience, bug-reports, etc. ))
>
>
- btw, the term 'tree' was just a long-ago naive picture of what the structure
would be like: it's of course not even a DAG - very much cyclic in parts,
though
usually resolvable with _e.g._ second-builds of packages. &usw.
rgds,
akh
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
