Tom Mueller wrote: > When I said "no complaint about there not being a [EMAIL PROTECTED]", I mean > no > complaint about there not being a [EMAIL PROTECTED] installed, not in the > repository. > Sorry if this was confusing. > > I still do not understand the intended semantics of the incorporate > dependency action, and now it's not clear to me what the semantics of > the optional dependency is either. Is a more complete definition for > the depend action written up somewhere (other than what is in > pkgs-and-groups.txt)? > > Regarding the optional dependency, if I have: > > a depends on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (optional) > > and [EMAIL PROTECTED] is installed, what should happen when I try to install > a? > Automatic update to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Install failure? > > Neither of these are happening now. Rather, a just gets installed > without doing anything to b. > > Is this a bug?
Yes. It should automatically update to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird." _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
