Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 12:52:27 +0100 (BST) From: Paul Richards <paul@netcraft.co.uk> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: paul@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Dependencies Message-ID: <199508311152.MAA00348@server.netcraft.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199508310841.BAA10845@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from "Satoshi Asami" at Aug 31, 95 01:41:30 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Satoshi Asami who said > * We can improve things a lot from where we currently are but it does > * complicate things that much more. In this case I think it's worth it > * though. Having PPP start up and download something I already have is > * really bad. > > The last sentence I can agree, but requiring all the exec_depends' > pathnames is a little too much. The three "default" cases (see above) > should cover most of what we need. Which comes back to the original point, the current mechanism fails not because the code isn't installed but because it isn't in the users default path. The thing that's wrong with the current scheme is that it relies on the path environment rather than checking that the files are actually there. -- Paul Richards, Bluebird Computer Systems. FreeBSD core team member. Internet: paul@FreeBSD.org, http://www.freebsd.org/~paul Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1222 457651 (home)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508311152.MAA00348>