On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:39:20PM +0800, Zhang Sen wrote: > On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 23:38 -0400, Michael K. Johnson wrote: > > How would it be more accurate? > > > It doesn't have to find all excessive buildreqs, but all that it does > report should be really excessive.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid that's orthogonal to what I was trying to ask. I didn't mean to ask what final goal you wanted to achieve. Of *course* I'd love Conary to do a perfect job here. The question is concretely how could it implement perfection. I was trying to ask what specific cases does it get wrong now for which sufficient information exists to make it more accurate. > > If you come up with more accurate ways of determining true buildreqs, > > please file them as issues -- then we can consider implementing them > > in Conary, making the extraneous buildRequires detection more > > complete. > > Sorry I don't and I'm afraid I can't in the foreseeable future... Calling it a "script" doesn't magically make it do a better job than Conary. My point is that if you know what a script might do, then you can know what Conary could do better; there is no difference as far as I can tell. If you have an understanding of how I'm wrong, please explain in detail so that I am able better to understand what you are saying. _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list Foresight-devel@lists.rpath.org http://lists.rpath.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
