Subject: Re: RFC: recommended dependencies (diffs attached)
To: Adam C. Migus <>
From: Rene Hexel <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/08/2004 22:49:09
On 08/01/2004, at 7:26 AM, Adam C. Migus wrote:

> How about basically doing what Rene said but changing the semantics a
> little bit so that the BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED become the
> BUILDLINK_DEPENDS and the old BUILDLINK_DEPENDS for cases that caused
> this discussion could go to BUILDLINK_DEPRECATED (of course alternate
> naming suggestions welcome).  Thus changing IGNORE_RECOMMENDED
> BUILD_WITH_DEPRECATED (naming suggestions again).

   Except that this would require changing every single existing
buildlink file, whereas leaving the old name for BUILDLINK_DEPENDS
does not require any changes unless a package gets updated and
recommendations should be set.

> The ideas being that 'the norm' stays the same, the exceptional case
> becomes apparent and in time the _DEPRECATED can be removed.

   Except that this is a different implementation.  This requires
a semantic change to buildlink.

   Except for maybe the names, I'd prefer the simplicity of my
original proposal ...

> In addition (if not already the case) it would be nice if the package
> data contained the information that it was build with _DEPRECATED.

   Yes, that would be nice, too.

   My suggestion would be to implement the simple approach
first (as it works without any changes to the package tools),
and in a second step to add to the binary packages flags
such as INCOMPATIBLE and DEPRECATED (they are independent
to a degree and as such can easily be added later on if
we want to go further with this).