Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:08:39 +0100 From: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: ashish@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: recent portrevision bump for libvpx Message-ID: <4F3E3537.9040105@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120217115441.Horde.mJZLe5jmRSRPPjHxZRgRf2k@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <4F3E289D.9050605@FreeBSD.org> <4F3E2CED.90601@FreeBSD.org> <20120217115441.Horde.mJZLe5jmRSRPPjHxZRgRf2k@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > When I made the EXPLICIT_PACKAGE_DEPENDS patch, I noticed that there is > not only libtool at fault (reaction of the libtool developers was IIRC: > it's not trivial to fix known problems for the cross-building case (for > libtool-1.x?)), but also pkg-config and similar things Yes, I know, it's correct what you say, but this doesn't prevent to improve things. I'm not saying that tomorrow we'll have a perfect ports tree where all and only direct dependencies will be listed, but if we don't even start... Currently we have exactly the opposite case: ports that have direct (maybe not needed) dependencies to libraries that are not recorded in Makefiles. This is the root cause of "portmaster -r" or aggressive bumps. -- Alex Dupre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3E3537.9040105>