On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > 	I actually quite like the 'NOT', to make it more obvious something
> > 	odd/wrong is happening. Actually I wouldn't mind 'make install'
> > 	failing if all dependencies are not found, and have to run
> > 	'make install IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS=1' to bypass that.
> > 	(I'd want the failure message to mention IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS :)
>
> Eh, why castrate your fine dependency system???
> We keep track of how we can build dependencies automatically if they
> aren't found, and there is NO reason not to do this.

	Apologies - I forgot this was a normal circumstances - I've just
	had a few cases recently (usually updated pkgsrc with old work
	directories) where its been an indication of something broken.

                David/absolute
			       -- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --