Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:43:18 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Henrik Brix Andersen <henrik@brixandersen.dk>, Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070803204215.GA68620@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> (from Fri, 3 Aug 2007 =20 16:42:15 -0400): > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:44:56PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote: >> On Friday, 3. August 2007, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> > > Quoting Henrik Brix Andersen <henrik@brixandersen.dk> (from Thu, 2 Au= g >> > > 2007 >> > > >> > > 16:17:10 +0200): >> > >>> Feature: >> > >>> - allow to only register explicit dependencies, disabled by defaul= t >> > >>> (EXPLICIT_PACKAGE_DEPENDS=3Dwhatever_you_want) >> > >> >> > >> Can you elaborate a bit on this new EXPLICIT_PACKAGE_DEPENDS feature= ? >> > >> Perhaps give a usage example or two? :) >> > > >> > > What about diffing the output of "make actual-package-depends" and "m= ake >> > > actual-package-depends -DEXPLICIT_PACKAGE_DEPENDS"? >> > > >> > > Simple Example: >> > > >> > > Port A depends upon B >> > > Port B depends upon C >> > > >> > > Without the feature: >> > > Port A registers dependencies to ports B and C >> > > >> > > With the feature: >> > > Port A registers dependendcy to ports B >> > >> > Great, then it's just the feature I needed :) Thank you for the >> > explanation. >> >> Not sure this can work reliably enough to be usefule at present, at =20 >> least for >> the specific scenario of avoiding unnecessary recompilations. I think the= re >> 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 =20 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 =20 be the goal to be usable"? If it is the former, I agree (see above). =20 If it is the later please elaborate (having correct dependency =20 information should always be a good idea, I think the benefits are =20 obvious, aren't they?). Bye, Alexander. --=20 "Irrationality is the square root of all evil" =09=09-- Douglas Hofstadter http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw>