Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 19:42:34 +0200 From: Ulrich Spoerlein <uspoerlein@gmail.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: "J. Porter Clark" <jpc@porterclark.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to abandon recursive pulling of dependencies? Message-ID: <20070516174234.GB1490@roadrunner.q.local> In-Reply-To: <20070516184543.4b9089e1@deskjail> References: <20070516112532.GA23292@auricle.charter.net> <20070516145645.k8elgn5pw8s8wso8@webmail.leidinger.net> <7ad7ddd90705160928y5c305470oc552cfd70f2ad057@mail.gmail.com> <20070516184543.4b9089e1@deskjail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting "Ulrich Spoerlein" <uspoerlein@gmail.com> (Wed, 16 May 2007 18:28:55 +0200): > > > The problem not discussed so far is: some ports may not have all first > > > order dependencies. So anyone wanting to change this should install a > > > tinderbox and start testing fixing those ports. > > > > Hmmm, this is a red herring, no? A first order dependency is > > everything the port specifies in it's _DEPENDS variables. If you > > change the internal representation of the tree, keeping the transitive > > hull intact (!!) then there should be no user visible change in how > > package dependencies are pulled in. > > Yes and no. It is not only about the package dependency, but also about > a "portupgrade -f" or "bumping all ports which depend directly upon lib > X". I see. In theory, we could use the mtime of some file /var/db/pkg/PKNAME/+FOO to work out what needs rebuilding/reinstalling (this is just like make(1) does it). In practice this would lead to way too many false positives, ie., unnecessary port rebuilds. Ulrich Spoerlein -- "The trouble with the dictionary is you have to know how the word is spelled before you can look it up to see how it is spelled." -- Will Cuppy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070516174234.GB1490>