Subject: Re: changing 'install-depends' output
To: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 11/14/2000 16:37:37
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > I actually quite like the 'NOT', to make it more obvious something
> > odd/wrong is happening. Actually I wouldn't mind 'make install'
> > failing if all dependencies are not found, and have to run
> > 'make install IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS=1' to bypass that.
> > (I'd want the failure message to mention IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS :)
> Eh, why castrate your fine dependency system???
> We keep track of how we can build dependencies automatically if they
> aren't found, and there is NO reason not to do this.
Apologies - I forgot this was a normal circumstances - I've just
had a few cases recently (usually updated pkgsrc with old work
directories) where its been an indication of something broken.
-- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --