Subject: Re: more syspkg patches
To: David Young <>
From: Jim Wise <>
List: tech-install
Date: 06/17/2003 02:24:31
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, David Young wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:14:45AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
>> >Will anyone object if I apply these patches, which speed things up a lot,
>> >and which also produce more consistent lists?
>> Looks good to me.  Please commit.
>  Ok. Will do.
>  I have also written a script which computes naive package dependencies
>  based on directory containment. I.e., if package A contains path foo/
>  and package B contains path foo/bar/, then B depends on A. I propose
>  to write these dependencies to distrib/sets/deps, which regpkg will
>  use to produce @pkgdep directives.
>  Attached are syspkgdeps (computes package dependencies), culldeps
>  (removes redundant dependencies), sets.subr (packing list functions),
>  and deps (example output).
>  I don't think that I need to explain why proper dependencies for system
>  packages are important, but if you want for me to say a few words,
>  just ask.

FWIW, here's what I wrote in private mail, since it's also applicable
on the list:

  Needing a directory which is used by another package (as
  opposed to a file) is not, sufficient as the sole reason to depend on
  that package.  Dependencies should indicate an actual functional
  requirement that some part of the depended-upon package be present.

  That said, I agree that this is a perfectly reasonable solution for
  now, standing in for either the ability to reference count a
  particular directory (as Solaris' pkg system does) so that as long as
  some using package remains, it remains, or the ability to encode
  directory needs (via mtree) in a package.

- -- 
				Jim Wise
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (NetBSD)