Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/devel/gmake
To: Alistair Crooks <email@example.com>
From: Michal Pasternak <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/09/2004 10:33:22
Alistair Crooks [Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:08:35AM +0000]:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:40:59AM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 10:21:42PM +0000, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > > As long as it's well-enough documented (in
> > > pkgsrc/devel/gmake/Makefile), I'd go along with it, but... why bother
> > > complicating things unnecessarily? These circular dependencies are a
> > > right PITA to find and squish, and none of this does anything to help
> > > that.
> > I'm not sure I understand -- I thought circular dependencies are
> > quite easy to find.
> Maybe direct ones are. But indirect ones?
> > Also, as Michal Pasternak wrote, bzip2 seems to compile fine
> > with our native make and the one from bootstrap-pkgsrc.
> I'm sure it does. But the bzip2 package might include info
> documentation, and this require texinfo to format the documentation.
> And texinfo might require gmake for its own Makefiles.
In such case, bzip2 package could be split to bzip2 and bzip2-docs.