On 8/27/07, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Did you mean BuildInformation, perchance? -- Hisham _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
