On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com> wrote:

> But fixing (2) is much more painful.  This will require splitting out the
> DEPENDS part of each buildlink2.mk file somehow (via a new .mk file and/or a
> make variable), so that other buildlink2.mk files can choose not to
> propagate inner dependencies.  Manual inspection will then be required to
> add these splits where appropriate; typically where one utility shlib has an
> inner dependency on another utility shlib, but an application using the
> first one doesn't care or know about the second.  For instance, GTK, SDL,
> etc. abstract away their underlying implementation layers, so apps using
> them don't give a damn about their dependencies.

This is why I proposed it now.  The switch to buildlink3 will require manual
inspection of packages too, and if the solution is present into it from now,
both things can be done at once.

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv@menta.net>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/