Subject: Re: Avoiding netpm dependencies
To: Geert Hendrickx <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Lam <email@example.com>
Date: 11/09/2005 11:02:26
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>>I'm debating whether to add "wish" (and similarly for "tclsh") to the
>>tools framework, so that a package that wanted "wish" at run-time would
>> USE_TOOLS+= wish:run
>>The tools framework would then take care of providing a common place for
>>setting the dependency on the tk package, though it may be overridden on
>>a per-package basis. This matches what I've currently done with "perl",
>>i.e., packages that want just want the "perl" interpreter at run-time
>> USE_TOOLS+= perl:run
>>Note that the perl dependency in the tools framework is looser than the
>>one in perl5/buildlink3.mk because if a package just wants the perl
>>interpreter, then some older version of perl can still be used.
> Hm, USE_TOOLS doesn't seem appropriate here, since that's for build-time
> depenendencies. But we may want to make a distriction between proper "run"
> dependencies vs "link" dependencies though. This is important e.g. when
> you want to statically link your packages (in that case "link" dependencies
> are more like build dependencies, whereas you will always still need the
> run dependencies at run-time).
Actually, USE_TOOLS can be used for both build- and run-time
dependencies. That was why I implemented modifiers such as ":run", as
in the examples I gave above. If we ever get to the point where pkgsrc
supports statically linking packages, then it's a simple matter to make
the buildlink framework use build dependencies instead of full
dependencies by appropriately setting BUILDLINK_DEPMETHOD.<pkg>.
-- Johnny Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>