Koen van der Drift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2004, at 4:35 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: > > > There are some packages containing header files for which it's not > > appropriate to declare BuildDependsOnly to be true. In that case, > > the package should declare > > BuildDependsOnly: false > > and the reason must be given in the DescPackaging field. > > > > What would be an example for such a situation? > > - Koen. > For example, there are packages that provide programming environments for users. The "root3" package is one example. Quoting root3.info: DescPackaging: << This package has a somewhat unorthodox split-off due to the fact that root relies on a C++ interpreter. Thus the header files are needed to run root interactively and it does not make sense to single the header files out into another split-off (root3-dev for example). << -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
