On Oct 8, 2007, at 14:49, Yves de Champlain wrote:
Le 07-10-08 à 14:45, N_Ox a écrit :
Le 8 oct. 07 à 16:44, Yves de Champlain a écrit :
Le 07-10-08 à 05:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Revision 29735 Author [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date 2007-10-08
02:34:33 -0700 (Mon, 08 Oct 2007) Log MessageUpdate dependencies
based on trace output-depends_build port:p5-xml-parser
-depends_lib port:gtk2 +depends_build \ + port:expat \ + port:p5-
xml-parser \ + port:perl5.8 +depends_lib \ + port:atk \ +
port:cairo \ + port:fontconfig \ + port:freetype \ +
port:gettext \ + port:glib2 \ + port:gtk2 \ + port:jpeg \ +
port:libiconv \ + port:libpng \ + port:pango \ + port:tiff
Sorry, but does this make any sense at all ?
I think all it will do is make the dependency checking phase even
longer and the Portfile stuffier.
And what about the gnome port ?
It does make sense if all of these are hard dependencies (as in
"hardcoded in configure.in or somewhere else.")
We should not do "If A depends on B and C and B depends on C, then
let's say A depends on B only."
Why not ?
If, as in nox's hypothetical example, A really does depend on B and
C, then both B and C should be listed as dependencies of A. C should
not be excluded from the dependencies of A just because B currently
depends on C. B might stop depending on C at some point, at which
point A would break if A really does itself independently need C.
I do not know if any of this applies to the commit on which this
thread is based.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
