On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:37:58AM -0500, James Chacon wrote:
> I really think is kinda lame to do to folks...What if someone installs apache
> and is working on something that's not in pkgsrc? They should now have 
> scripts which don't install the proper dependencies to work?

I actually agree with you here.  It's only historic that the apache package
doesn't depend on perl.  Well, actually it's a little more than historic
since in the past, developers complained about depending on perl because
it's a large package that they don't use.  I don't have any problem with it
since so many other packages use perl that I almost always have it installed
anyway.  It's partly becase of this problem with always needing a
BUILD_DEPENDency on perl when using apxs that I made apache/buildlink.mk in
the first place.  I certainly don't mind having it be a full dependency.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@jgrind.org>