On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

> > It doesn't seem right to bump 600 packages' versions with PKGREVISION if
> > they don't really use any tiff. What do other package projects do?
>
> Other projects don't have "automatic" dependencies. It's been pointed
> out, many times, what's wrong with collecting sub-dependencies and
> expressing them in the top-level packages, and it's been pointed out
> what's wrong with buildlink's collecting sub-dependencies, so I won't
> belabor that here. You should do a search on the web site, if you're
> interested. Here are a couple relevant items:
>
>     http://www.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=21097

Yes, I have already looked at that.

And now since yesterday, I have been using it on two systems. I will
discuss this in another thread.

> Of course you need to bump for the packages that really depend on
> "tiff", to prevent issues with the binary packages. For the others,
> the stand-out solution is to rip out the incorrect dependency in the
> first place.

That's the  hard part -- knowing which packages really use libtiff or
tiff headers at build time or tiff utilities. My suggestion is to move
them out of the way and then on a bulk build see what fails.

   Jeremy C. Reed
   http://www.reedmedia.net/