A couple of notes on this port:
This big dependency chain was introduced because of a note that gtk-
engines2 broke if it was installed on a clean machine (ie one that
did not have GNOME installed on it first).
After the gettext upgrade fiasco, where I was maintaining some ports
(port A) where the dependency chain was A => B => C => D => E =>
gettext, but all ports A-E were linked to it by E's requirement, only
E had the explicit dependency and so A-D had to be manually
reinstalled. It seems smart to be overly explicit about dependencies
in these cases.
That said, there may be some overkill here, but I'm not sure how to
determine what is and what isn't overkill.
On 8 Oct 2007, at 17:43, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 16:02, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
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.
But if A only depends on C through B's dependency on it, I don't
really see why such link should be listed explicitly in A's
dependency list.
I agree with that also.
As in the gtk-engines2 example above: does such port really itself
*explicitly* depend on glib2 (that is, would the sources fail to
preprocess were the glib headers moved aside temporarily, or to
link in the case of missing glib libraries)? Or is the glib2
dependency listed only 'cause gtk2 itself depends on it? In case
of the former, the dependency needs to be clearly stated; in case
of the latter, it's unnecessary bloat in my opinion.
Right, that should be investigated. I'm not familiar enough with
gtk-engines2 to know.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Randall Wood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://shyramblings.blogspot.com
"The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes.
All the
rest is just philosophy."
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
