From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Aug 28 01:14:33 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id BAA10153
          for ports-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 01:14:33 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA10145
          ; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 01:14:30 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA03755; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 01:14:22 -0700
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 01:14:22 -0700
Message-Id: <199508280814.BAA03755@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com
CC: paul@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <2283.809597486@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: Dependencies
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: ports-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

 * > That is possible, but I thought it would be more robust to use "which"
 * > because we don't know if the user installed the dependency via pkg_add
 * > or the ports' "make install".  Note that pkg_info looks only at
 * > /var/db/pkg.
 * 
 * Shouldn't matter?  `make install' now tweaks /var/db/pkg TOO, remember?

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I meant, "we don't know it the user installed
the dependency (via pkg_add | the ports)".

What I wanted to say was, it doesn't work if the user compiled the
port and installed it without touching anything in the ports or
package area, but that should be fine as far as EXEC_DEPENDS goes.

Satoshi