Re: Summary of implicit DEPENDS problem

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost> writes:

>> I don't like "implicit" as that means "not stated", and these are
>> manifest in pkgsrc sources, just not in the original package.  So this
>> sort of feels like "recursive" except that it isn't recursive, or at
>> least I hope not.  I would therefore suggest CHAIN_DEPENDS or
>> NESTED_DEPENDS.
> I'm not a native speaker, but "indirect" would seem most natural to mee.

I agree; I withdraw CHAIN and NESTED in favor of INDIRECT.