Subject: Re: Dependencies, including "make update" issues.
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Richard Rauch <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 07/03/2005 12:30:21
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:14:38AM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Richard Rauch wrote:
> But what if you do it the other way round?
> 1. Install B
>    [... time passes ...]
> 2. Start developing with libA, because it's installed
> 3. Deinstall B
>    [... poof!, libA is gone ...]

Yeah, I know.

The system isn't going to read minds.  (^&

> To address this concern, I have a pkgsrc/local tree containing my own
> meta-pkgs for each system I have, including everything I need for that
> system.  Basically, the meta-pkg depends on *everything* (directly or
> indirectly) with a bunch of lines like:

You're still down to having to remember to set this up for packages that
you want to keep.  If libA gets installed "incidentally" and you forget
to put it into your meta-pkg, I don't see how you're any better off.
(Though I guess it avoids creating a special tool, or sub-command on an
existing tool...)

I pondered using meta-pkgs for this, but wasn't sure that it was
what I wanted.  I didn't think of it as one big meta-pkg for the
entire system, though.  That's simpler than what I was thinking...

> Coupled with the script below, which lists all packages with no dependents,
> I know very quickly if a package is no longer needed.  I simply run the

So you manually pkg_delete the "unneeded" packages?  Or do you have the
packages on the list automatically deleted?

  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."