On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:35:50PM +0000, Edd Barrett wrote: > Hi, > > A while ago a user pointed out that if you install texlive_texmf-minimal > and then run pkg_check(8) then you get the following message: > > texlive_texmf-minimal-2020p0 has too many dependencies: > texlive_mktexlsr-2020p0 > > The message is weird because texlive_texmf-minimal doesn't (directly) > depend on texlive_mktexlsr. Indeed, if you look at the +REQUIRING file > for the package in /var/db/pkg, texlive_mktexlsr is listed. > > (Looking in my mail, it seems I did speak to espie@ about this a while > back) > > Tonight I ran some experiments to see if I could figure out what's going > on. I've managed to narrow it down to the '@tag mktexlsr' line at the > end of texmf/pkg/PLIST-main. If you comment this and build and install > the package, pkg_check(8) is happy. > > The tag stuff for texlive_texmf-minimal looks correct to me. > texlive_texmf-minimal RUN_DEPENDS texlive_texmf-buildset, which in turn > RUN_DEPENDS texlive_mktexlsr. So the tag is in scope correctly, and > anyway, IIRC the tools complain if the tag is not in scope. > > So while it might be possible to fix the error by adding > texlive_mktexlsr as a RUN_DEPEND of texlive_texmf-minimal, it seems like > it shouldn't be necessary. > > So somehow this extra dependency is bleeding in via the tags stuff in > the pkg tools? > > I don't know if that helps to narrow in on a bug espie? > > Thanks
I had a duh moment.... the bug isn't in pkg_add but in pkg_check namely, the REQUIRING files actually contain all pieces needed for a port, and *that includes indirect dependencies* that do match a wantlib. naturally, when adding tags, indirect dependencies should also include the corresponding define-tag source. this is where the actual bug is (well, missing code to be exact) I could have looked at pkg_add for ages, pkg_add is correct.
