Subject: Re: more syspkg patches
To: David Young <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jim Wise <email@example.com>
Date: 06/17/2003 02:24:31
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----