Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:35:58 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Alexander Nedotsukov <bland@FreeBSD.org> Cc: marius <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Subject: Re: Problems with ".if HAVE_GNOME" tests because of installation order Message-ID: <20040127123558.7eacc6c5@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <40152EDB.70406@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040126133927.26c8247b@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <40152EDB.70406@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:14:35 +0900
Alexander Nedotsukov <bland@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> This is not gnome ports specific problem. Any port wich tries to guess
But Gnome is a prominent example and shares a lot more developer
resources than a maintainer of one of those non-gnome ports may be able
to get help from.
> it configuration in way ".if exists() xx_DEPENDS+=" have such flaw.
> Situation can be resolved sometimes by adding WITHOUT_xx option if
It helps if you don't want such behavior, but in cases where you don't
want the WITHOUT_x one, this isn't helpful.
> they supported by port (unfortunately this is not sysutils/cdrdao
> case). The better way seems to use info stored in /var/db/pkg rather
> than do recursive make wailk through ports tree but this I guess need
> more than my pure speculation on subject :-)
I think a port should only depend on it's explicit dependencies, not on
the implicit ones. This implies, that a port should register every
dependency explicitly and shouldn't rely on implicit dependency
registrations.
Did I overlooked a situation where this causes problems?
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I will be available to get hired in April 2004.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040127123558.7eacc6c5>