Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/www/apache
To: Johnny Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: James Chacon <email@example.com>
Date: 02/05/2002 02:13:30
The one thing that was kinda disturbing when I tried this was:
apache depending on perl
As a result ap-aolserver decided it now depended on perl which was pretty silly
since nothing in it to run actually needs perl. I really think the dependency
stuff should only go one level deep here in some way.
>On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:37:58AM -0500, James Chacon wrote:
>> I really think is kinda lame to do to folks...What if someone installs apache
>> and is working on something that's not in pkgsrc? They should now have
>> scripts which don't install the proper dependencies to work?
>I actually agree with you here. It's only historic that the apache package
>doesn't depend on perl. Well, actually it's a little more than historic
>since in the past, developers complained about depending on perl because
>it's a large package that they don't use. I don't have any problem with it
>since so many other packages use perl that I almost always have it installed
>anyway. It's partly becase of this problem with always needing a
>BUILD_DEPENDency on perl when using apxs that I made apache/buildlink.mk in
>the first place. I certainly don't mind having it be a full dependency.
> -- Johnny Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>