On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:43:44 +0200, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Having submitted several binary packages and had some chats on IRC with > >> users > >> trying to install the same packages I came to the conclusion that we need > >> to > >> rework the dependency scheme a lot. > >> > >> First I'd like to change dependencies to be none recursive. > > I agree. It's not really necessary (now), and it'd be clearer if they > > weren't all listed. > > Ok. I've thought about it and I can't see nothing against this and even if > there > were, I think the pros will weight out the cons, also those that have > commented > on this was positive, so I commited the changes. As in my commit message, for > example toolkits, e.g. GTK+, can be compiled agains any X server and > applications > using that toolkit doesn't have to know. CheckDependencies takes care of the > recursion. > > I still want comments and ideas on the new scheme. :)
Just to make it official, as we've already talked about this before: yes, this seems to be a sane approach to handle dependencies. BuildDependencies, however, should be left untouched, as it's a good source for hints when something goes wrong. -- Lucas powered by /dev/dsp _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
