Subject: Re: binary dependancy ordering
To: Hume Smith <>
From: Hubert Feyrer <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/16/1999 04:26:37
Um, pkg_add *is* truly recursive, so, there's not much left to fix.

 - Hubert

P.S.: Could you please hit RETURN every 75 chars? Thanks!

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Hume Smith wrote:

> Hokay... i think i brought this up before, but it may have gotten lost in the heat of something else...
> The dependancy lists in binary packages are in the wrong order.  It's plain alphabetical, which causes some packages to fail to install in one pass on an 'empty' system.  (E.g. try to pkg_add kde-1.1.1 with none of its dependancies installed... it will take two tries, at least.  it will try kdebase ahead of kdelibs, png, qt, tiff, and xpm.)
> There are two solutions - make pkg_add truly recurse to dependancies (which is probably icky), or list the dependancies in a better order (probably easier).  I wrote a script to compute a suitable ordering once the packages are already installed, to see how hard it is to do (not very) - <URL:> .  Last night I replaced the +CONTENTS of kde-1.1.1 with the order I had computed from kde-1.1, and everything went in no sweat in a single pass.
> Or, perhaps... hmmm, there is a third way.  It's a tweak to pkg_add (maybe it's been done? i may be using an old pkg_add); if a dependancy fails to install because its dependancies aren't met, move it to the end of the queue instead of skipping it.  (knowing when to stop is a bit tricky, then... remember the first failure since the last success, and if you return to it, nothing more will install.)
> I don't know enough about the package tools to help with implementing this, unfortunately...
> --
> <URL:>

NetBSD - Better for your uptime than Viagra