From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 13 19:36:12 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE5416A4CE
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:36:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DF143D2F
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:36:12 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id ABC81148DD; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:36:11 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:36:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho
To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <41964683.70804@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411131332480.18539-100000@pancho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: ports@freebsd.org
cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
cc: Andres Mejias <morpheo@arsystel.com>
Subject: Re: portupgrade problem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:36:12 -0000

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Michael Nottebrock wrote:

> Mark Linimon wrote:
> 
> > Since we've never told porters that they can't cross-depend on
> > categories,
> 
> Not sure I get you right here. Are you saying we should forbid for a port in 
> category a to depend on a port in category b? That doesn't seem to make much 
> sense.

For some values of a and b, that is what I'm saying it would require,
yes.  i.e. the only way to support the use of 'refuse' on any ports
category is to say 'this category is a leaf category and nothing in
any other category can depend on it'.

This is what people are assuming about the 'japanese' category and
it isn't the case.  We need to either change the assumption(s) or
change the behavior.  Obviously the former is easier, but is it TRT?

mcl