Subject: Re: Recursive package dependency registration...
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/21/2001 20:43:31
>...has got to go. Currently, perl-dependent packages are depending on perl,
>perl-base, p5-CGI, p5-Data-Dumper, etc. So how will they cope when perl
>gets updated and these packages are part of perl-base again?
>Registering only direct dependencies should be adequate -- that allows a pkg
>maintainer to specify succinctly the things upon which the package could
>function properly if dependencies were changed.
>And no, I don't care one bit that it `helps downloading' -- the benefit is
>far less than the detrimental effect.
if there was a way of indicating that some (all?) pkgs depended on
simply having the perl binary installed, that would be a big win.
then i'd feel a whole lot better about nuking the perl installation
and installing a new one.
i tried make update today in pkgsrc/lang/perl5 and lost heavily. perl
now seems to depend on perl-mk-1.0 which is for some reason
interpreted as a binary requirement. since there's no binary called
perl-mk-1.0, the update was lost (i had to kill it since it looped
trying to install autoconf or automake, i forget which) and had to
copy /usr/bin/true to /usr/pkg/bin/perl-mk-1.0 to get around it. what
i copied and where i copied it from/to is probably irrelevant, but the
perl-mk pkg seems to be rather bogus.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."