Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 20:49:30 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: "James E. Flemer" <jflemer@uvm.edu> Subject: Re: Why are implicit package dependencies recorded? Message-ID: <200505082049.31145.lofi@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200505082044.52084.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <427E4687.40901@uvm.edu> <200505082044.52084.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart2402145.oO0TC5tDve Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday, 8. May 2005 20:44, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > Both of these cases can be avoided by building P with the same flags > > that D was built with. In the simple case, that does not seem like a > > bad solution, but in practice there can be a huge number of deps and > > sub-deps (mplayer has around 45). Ah, I've been reading too fast again. Yes, all packages in a dependency-cha= in=20 will have to be built to match. It would be possible to make the pkg_* tool= s=20 smarter in order to avoid that, but at the moment quite everything (from=20 pkg_* to the package cluster scripts) relies on prerecorded (or=20 pre-generated, i.e. INDEX) sub-deps. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --nextPart2402145.oO0TC5tDve Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCfl87Xhc68WspdLARAuGMAJ9Y7bfSpIO9Hd1RVwgaKuMIrUgegwCfbK64 qSsknxJDT/C4ru7/KO25zKI= =5Lyu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2402145.oO0TC5tDve--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200505082049.31145.lofi>