Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 08:22:39 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dependency explosions Message-ID: <20161004062239.GE85563@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <b032d7a3-223d-12a2-732c-56b2b2588f8a@gjunka.com> References: <2df71272-7b98-ad73-650a-3ec70beb71d5@freebsd.org> <d14d1aaf-5bdb-2e09-2892-2e32c4db0810@FreeBSD.org> <19d248ae-8919-fdc9-84e8-ff90ae761e6f@gjunka.com> <20161003151148.4860ca1a@curlew.lan> <6d1eb20d-4597-8176-3dbd-661648a6a03c@gjunka.com> <6bb0a476-ed26-1bdd-5ec5-0d6e2adf0b76@FreeBSD.org> <1d50327a-161a-8ec8-9065-fc853ed79a13@gjunka.com> <20161004050958.GD85563@home.opsec.eu> <b032d7a3-223d-12a2-732c-56b2b2588f8a@gjunka.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > > The problem is to add code to allow variants is complex and needs > > engineering power. > But regarding the > changes that would be required to only allow other variants, why do you > say it would be complex? Wouldn't that be only a change in pkg so that > it can handle dependencies per set properly? It's my gut feeling, nothing more. I have not looked at the code of pkg or the ports framework. It's only that I'm playing around with dependency trees for the last quarter of a century, that's feeding my gut feeling here 8-} -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161004062239.GE85563>