Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:56:45 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: "J. Porter Clark" <jpc@porterclark.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to abandon recursive pulling of dependencies? Message-ID: <20070516145645.k8elgn5pw8s8wso8@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20070516112532.GA23292@auricle.charter.net> References: <20070516112532.GA23292@auricle.charter.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting "J. Porter Clark" <jpc@porterclark.com> (from Wed, 16 May 2007 =20 06:25:32 -0500): > What I don't like about the flattening of the dependencies is > that there seems to be information loss; that is, I can't figure > out why one port (e.g., gweled) requires another port (e.g., > cdrtools). Is there any tool to unflatten the dependencies? No. And just recording the first order dependencies would be a =20 sensible approach to get this information. But this is just one more =20 reason why first order dependencies would be better than the current =20 recording of everything. The problem not discussed so far is: some ports may not have all first =20 order dependencies. So anyone wanting to change this should install a =20 tinderbox and start testing fixing those ports. Bye, Alexander. --=20 On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia. =09=09-- W.C. Fields' epitaph http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070516145645.k8elgn5pw8s8wso8>