On Jan 26, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 26, 2007, at 13:34, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
...
You're right, it should compile just fine with a normal 10.4
install (I'm not sure if rcs, in the BSD package on 10.4, was also
in BSD in 10.3, which I think was still optional). The only issue
is that the dependency claims that it can be resolved by
installing the rcs port, which doesn't exist.
Ah, is that what it means? The portfile says "depends_run ...
bin:merge:rcs ..." Does that mean "I need the binary called merge,
and if there isn't one, install the port rcs"? I'm still muddling
my way through the portfile syntax.
Yup, that's it; this is the older dependency style, before
port:portname became the preferred. In fact, had this port been
upgraded to port:rcs, then it'd definitely break. I think at this
point the few uses for the old bin:program:portname and
lib:libname:portname is for big things which we accept as valid pre-
installed dependencies like X11.
Bryan
With 10.4, we can definitely assume it's just there, so the fix is
simply to remove that dep altogether. Though, if you look at that
thread, most of the issues didn't seem to be of interest...
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
