Subject: Re: Optional Dependancies
To: Chris Gilbert <email@example.com>
From: Richard Rauch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/21/2001 16:44:37
When this has come up in the past, I've had one (to me) CRITICAL concern.
I don't remember ever voicing it before, so I'll do so, now. Bear in mind
that this is speaking strictly as a user of pkgsrc. (^&
Suppose that A has B as an optional dependancy, and that I have no
installed B. Then, I install A, and everything goes well. Later, I
decided that I really want B installed, so I install B.
GNOME, and I think KDE, both do some scanning of my system in order to
figure out what is installed. So, if A is one of those two, I'm probably
alright in most cases.
Assume that A is not one of those two, and that it depends upon
compile-time decisions to know what it can expect about my system. (E.g.,
Python using a threading library, say.) Will building B then rebuild A
with the proper (optional, now-available) dependancy on B?
IMHO, it is unduly surprising to get two different versions of A depending
upon WHICH ORDER you build your packages in.
On the other hand, the back-and-forth checking of dependancies may be
I wouldn't mind too much having the packages rebuilt, personally. I would
be very disturbed, however, if the package that I got was dependant upon
the order in which I built my packages.
If a flag were used to convert optional dependancies, this might be
alright, though. (I'd rather see a variable to turn optional dependancies
into hard dependancies, rather than ignored, though. In general, packages
build without a hitch and those of us who always build from pkgsrc
probably won't mind the extra burden. In turn, it makes the packages
``maximally functional'', and may help better test the package system.)
Another reason to prefer turning optional dependancies into hard
dependancies is that finding all of the optional pieces can be a
Just my 2.718281828459045 (and a fiddly-bit) cents' worth. (^&
"I probably don't know what I'm talking about." --email@example.com