On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 01:34:06PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > Alexander Leidinger schrieb: > > Kris, what technical reasons are against explicit dependencies, in > > your opinion? > Explicit dependencies would be great, if they can be guaranteed to be > correct, which basically means we need a way auto-generate them. Maybe > this could be done in a similar way to the security check target - run > ldd/objdump over installed executables and libraries, record symbol > names somewhere, determine dependencies by comparing records ... > > Explicit dependencies that need to be determined and maintained manually > by port maintainers are useless, since they'll be almost guaranteed to > be wrong most of the time for those ports that would profit the most > (shave off the most implicit dependencies) from having them.
Yes, this is the most serious problem. Also there is no need to introduce a new variable to handle it: if you want to record explicit dependencies a better way is to use LIB_ or RUN_DEPENDS and track the direct vs inherited dependencies differently in the package database. Kris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
