Re: make replace

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 05:03:00PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > > First, there are large classes of inconsistencies that I think we
 > > actually do have agreement are unwanted.  The we-all-agree-is-bad list
 > > has things like:
 > > 
 > [cut]
 > > 
 > >   package A thinks it requires B, but registry of B does not show that A
 > >   depends on it
 > [cut]
 > 
 > This is the specific property that the intended "make replace" behavior
 > violates.

That would be a problem, yes. However, I don't particularly understand
how this can be related to the particular dependencies problem we've
been arguing about -- if the DESTDIR and binary package form of make
replace doesn't do the preservation of +REQUIRED_BY that the
non-DESTDIR version performs, then it's been broken all along...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost