Subject: Re: RFC: new variable SUGGESTS
To: None <>
From: Jan Schaumann <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/22/2002 17:59:26
Frederick Bruckman <> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> > Binary packages uploaded to should, IMHO, be built from
> > an empty pksrc system to ensure that only "hard" dependencies are marked
> > as such.
> 1) That's impractical. If you make that rule, there would likely be no
> packages for anything but i386, and the ones that are uploaded would
> be sadly out of date.
> 2) We currently support users making their own portable packages - if
> you accept that principle, you break that.
> 3) Buildlink was supposed to fix all that, and the worst part of the
> transition seems to be behind us. Your proposal is, therefore, a giant
> leap backwards.

Good reasons - I retract that statement.

> What I would go for (and have suggested before), is reviving
> RUN_DEPENDS for binary packages and such that *do* *not* affect the
> build in any way, and a post-package stage to (optionally) install
> them, and run the INSTALL scripts.

I'm not familiar with RUN_DEPENDS, but the example Hubert gave does not
seem to benefit from such a procedure, as a non-dependency has become a
dependency in that case.  No?


I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle.