Subject: Re: packages using ncurses
To: grant beattie <>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 02/20/2003 13:54:31
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, grant beattie wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 12:05:16PM -0600, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > IMO, these things should go into the bootstrap kit for the OS. (So...
> > now we need a portable NetBSD curses?) Same thing for openssl. There's
> > no way we're going to be able to spot dependencies on things in our
> > base system, and the chief advantage to having such things in our base
> > system is that we don't then have to track dependencies.
> Only tools that are *really* needed for bootstrapping should be
> included in the bootstrap kit.
> Neither ncurses or openssl fall into this category.
> If we are going to link programs against libraries which are in the
> base system, registering a dependancy is desired (imho) so that
> upgrades of system packages can be performed without major breakage.

A dependency on the system package (which doesn't exist), or a
dependency on a package that's not installed? Neither makes sense.

Lot's of packages are linked against libraries in the base system.
What we've done in the past, is keep a seperate collection of packages
for 1.4.3, 1.5, and so on. Until syspkgs are implemented, you're not
going to be able to do any better.

That's fine to say, "let's let every package that uses OpenSSL" depend
on openssl, but there's isn't any way of identifying such packages.
The whole buildlink thing breaks down in the face of dependencies on
features that are included with the system.