On Oct 8, 2007, at 14:49, Yves de Champlain wrote:
Le 07-10-08 à 14:45, N_Ox a écrit :
Le 8 oct. 07 à 16:44, Yves de Champlain a écrit :
Le 07-10-08 à 05:34, source_changes@macosforge.org a écrit :
Revision 29735 Author rhwood@macports.org Date 2007-10-08 02:34:33 -0700 (Mon, 08 Oct 2007) Log MessageUpdate dependencies based on trace output-depends_build port:p5-xml-parser -depends_lib port:gtk2 +depends_build \ + port:expat \ + port:p5- xml-parser \ + port:perl5.8 +depends_lib \ + port:atk \ + port:cairo \ + port:fontconfig \ + port:freetype \ + port:gettext \ + port:glib2 \ + port:gtk2 \ + port:jpeg \ + port:libiconv \ + port:libpng \ + port:pango \ + port:tiff
Sorry, but does this make any sense at all ? I think all it will do is make the dependency checking phase even longer and the Portfile stuffier. And what about the gnome port ?
It does make sense if all of these are hard dependencies (as in "hardcoded in configure.in or somewhere else.") We should not do "If A depends on B and C and B depends on C, then let's say A depends on B only."
Why not ?
If, as in nox's hypothetical example, A really does depend on B and C, then both B and C should be listed as dependencies of A. C should not be excluded from the dependencies of A just because B currently depends on C. B might stop depending on C at some point, at which point A would break if A really does itself independently need C. I do not know if any of this applies to the commit on which this thread is based.