The one thing that was kinda disturbing when I tried this was:

apache depending on perl

As a result ap-aolserver decided it now depended on perl which was pretty silly
since nothing in it to run actually needs perl. I really think the dependency 
stuff should only go one level deep here in some way.

James

>
>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>
>
>
>
>