Brock Pytlik wrote: > >>Do we need to allow users to specify path and basenames separately > >>(like generate does) or is allowing multiple full paths sufficient? > >>Can target be a relative path to source? > >Do you have a use case for either? > > The use case for the former is mostly less typing in some situations.
Right. What kind of situation? I think it might also be worth thinking about the other pkgdepend abstraction bug we have, where we have to specify the full path in bypass-generate, rather than the high-level object that we want to ignore. This comes up when trying to bypass generation of dependencies on python modules, for instance -- you have to specify all possible paths of the python module, which is insane, or use a regular expression which is potentially far too inclusive. So, similarly, what if I want to declare a dependency on a python module? Why should I have to specify the full path(s) instead of just the module name (is this where you were thinking it would be useful to use a path and multiple filenames)? Fundamentally, we want to name the interface we depend on, which may very well be something other than a path or a service. So perhaps we need "kind" after all? (I'd probably use "target-type".) Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list pkg-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
