Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 02:56:34 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Henrik Brix Andersen <henrik@brixandersen.dk>, Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20070806065634.GA31676@rot26.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <200706281553.l5SFr56i099807@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070802181715.46yikycm8gc8g8kk@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070803125410.GB1062@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <200708032144.57558.lofi@freebsd.org> <20070803204215.GA68620@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 07:43:18AM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >>Not sure this can work reliably enough to be usefule at present, at > >> least for > >>the specific scenario of avoiding unnecessary recompilations. I think > >>there > >>are just too many ports with implicit dependencies, especially in the > >>KDE/GNOME domain. > > That's a bug in those ports IMHO. And that's the reason why this > feature is not enabled by default. > > >Yes. I'm not even convinced this feature is a good idea. > > "Not a good idea" as in "is not usable yet" or as in "it should never > be the goal to be usable"? If it is the former, I agree (see above). > If it is the later please elaborate (having correct dependency > information should always be a good idea, I think the benefits are > obvious, aren't they?). Both: we're not there yet, and I don't see why this implementation is the best way to get there :) Did I miss your discussion of the proposal? Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070806065634.GA31676>