On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Rogue wrote:
I disagree respectfully. I have in the past avoided (trying out)
many packages because the Dep list was unreasonably long. I tend to
be minimalist, not the safest approach undoutedly, but it is worth
it in the long run IMHO.
Indirect dependencies in particular can be difficult to track down
but will save a huge amount of compile time to users.
So...you would risk broken packages just to save yourself some
compile time? I don't think that's a good idea. I hate waiting for
compiles, too, but what's the point of waiting several hours for a
build to finish if you end up with a package that doesn't work?
Besides, isn't the Fink culture all about safety? That's why packages
must go through an extensive validation process and why few
developers have CVS access, right?
PS: dependencies, isn't that what otool -L is for?
Unfortunately, I don't know of any such tool for Java packages, which
is what I've mainly been submitting to Fink. Same problem with Perl,
Python, and so on. Anybody know of otool equivalents for these
languages?
Trevor
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
