Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:37:24 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Stephen Hurd <shurd@sasktel.net> Subject: Re: Keeping track of automatically installed dependency-only ports Message-ID: <4674C894.8090500@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4674AD7C.3090603@sasktel.net> References: <20070614070602.GD39533@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <200706140714.l5E7EK0U023767@smtpclu-1.eunet.yu> <20070614075418.GA8093@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <200706142322.l5ENMbZt009741@smtpclu-6.eunet.yu> <20070615121125.GH1173@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4673B353.5040006@sasktel.net> <20070616114154.GA56829@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <4674AD7C.3090603@sasktel.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen Hurd wrote: > Jeremie Le Hen wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:54:27AM -0700, Stephen Hurd wrote: >> >>> All of this rather assumes that *everything* is installed from >>> ports. 1) install portXXX which requires SDL, so SDL gets sucked in >>> 2) build thingYYY (which uses configure and only uses SDL if it's >>> already installed - common) manually and install it >>> >> >> If thingYYY detects SDL and uses it at configure stage, it should be >> recorded in the dependency list. I suppose this is up to the >> maintainer to deal with this as whether the aforementioned feature >> exists or not, nothing would prevent the user from deinstalling SDL >> and break thingYYY otherwise. >> > > Hrm? In step 2, "manually" meant "Not using ports" > That is to say that I downloaded it from Sourceforge myself, extracted > it myself, built and installed it myself. > > I do this fairly often. When I want to use Software that is not in ports, I get it into the ports tree.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4674C894.8090500>