Subject: Re: sorted dependencies
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
Date: 08/07/2005 15:52:08
On 8/7/05, Alan Barrett <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005, Roland Illig wrote:
> > You could create some meta-packages like my-servers, my-tools,
> > my-games and make my-tools depend on my-servers.
> In my case, I'd need at least 10 such packages. The first few packages
> are things I install with the network disconnected, because I know
> email delivery will fail in interesting ways when perl and procmail are
> not installed. The next few packages are things I want before I am
> comfortable in a shell (e.g. misc/screen). And so on, ending with huge
> packages that I seldom use. Building the whole lot takes several days,
> and it's important to me that the ones I want first get built first.
> Just installing them all from binary packages created by pkg_comp takes
> a while, and again I want it to be done in the order I specified.
> I prefer having just one meta-package, with the dependencies processed
> in the order I specified.
> > On the other hand, I wouldn't feel offended if anyone changed back the
> > dependencies to the first-come-first-serve order, I just prefer the
> > alphabetical order.
> Oh, did the order get changed recently? I don't recall any discussion
> before that happened. Please revert to the first-come-first-served
> order, or at least make it an option that I can request in my
> meta-package's Makefile.
I just verified it and indeed it was changed. Why was this done?
I was relying on the order of dependencies in the gnome-* meta
packages to ease updates as much as possible.
Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/