Re: libcroco and xz

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 07:31:40PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
>  > The problem I have with the commit is that it also hides the reverse
>  > case. A dependency is declared as build time only, used by a dependency
>  > as full dependency, but explicitly linked against. I'm more inclined to
>  > care about that case than the reverse.
> 
> I think that's less important. If it's an indirect dependency, it'll
> always be present; the only way it'll fail at runtime is if an update
> to libxml2 changes it to longer bring in xz. However, this will result
> (if handled correctly) in xz being removed from xz's bl3.mk and
> libcroco being revbumped and rebuilt, and then the liblzma NEEDED
> entry will go away in the new build. IOW, it won't fail, so there's no
> point worrying about it.

If we want to do that (I'm mildly opposed, but I agree that this will
hit us a lot more often), I think the correct approach is to expand the
list of full dependencies once. So move the pkg_info -r calls out of the
AWK script and provide a second version of the .depends file that
contains the full list of packages we are willing to accept shared
linking against.

Joerg