From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 6 08:16:22 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C14116A419; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:16:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A7513C46B; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:16:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot26.obsecurity.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2065A1A3C1A; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rot26.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2EB97C1D2; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 02:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 02:56:34 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Alexander Leidinger Message-ID: <20070806065634.GA31676@rot26.obsecurity.org> References: <200706281553.l5SFr56i099807@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070802181715.46yikycm8gc8g8kk@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070803125410.GB1062@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <200708032144.57558.lofi@freebsd.org> <20070803204215.GA68620@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw@webmail.leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw@webmail.leidinger.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Henrik Brix Andersen , Michael Nottebrock , cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Pav Lucistnik , Kris Kennaway , cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.port.mk X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:16:22 -0000 On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 07:43:18AM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >>Not sure this can work reliably enough to be usefule at present, at > >> least for > >>the specific scenario of avoiding unnecessary recompilations. I think > >>there > >>are just too many ports with implicit dependencies, especially in the > >>KDE/GNOME domain. > > That's a bug in those ports IMHO. And that's the reason why this > feature is not enabled by default. > > >Yes. I'm not even convinced this feature is a good idea. > > "Not a good idea" as in "is not usable yet" or as in "it should never > be the goal to be usable"? If it is the former, I agree (see above). > If it is the later please elaborate (having correct dependency > information should always be a good idea, I think the benefits are > obvious, aren't they?). Both: we're not there yet, and I don't see why this implementation is the best way to get there :) Did I miss your discussion of the proposal? Kris